Trophy detail for one game

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral detail such as fuzzy matching and needing np_service_name only with a raw ID. However, it calls the result 'Full' while the schema defaults limit to 150, and it doesn't disclose hidden-trophy behavior or what happens when no identifier is passed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences deliver output, input modes, and use cases with no filler. The most decision-relevant information appears first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It is strong for a read-only tool with output schema present, but several invocation details are left implicit: 0 required parameters means both identifiers can be omitted, yet no fallback behavior is described, and the default limit of 150 qualifies the 'Full' claim. Those gaps matter for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is moderate (67%), and the description contributes beyond schema by explaining the game-vs-np_communication_id choice and fuzzy matching. It does not add meaning for limit, status, or include_hidden, but those are partially covered by schema defaults and titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (full trophy list for a single game) and the data it returns (earned status, earn dates, rarity), which clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on libraries and profiles. The verb 'Pass' and the title make the operation obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states two concrete input routes (fuzzy title match or exact np_communication_id) and gives use cases ('what's left to platinum', engagement depth). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context makes the intended selection clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.