get_current_player_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable contextual details beyond annotations: 'No API key required' (auth expectations) and 'Returns the live concurrent player count' (response nature). This exceeds what the annotations alone communicate.

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?

Three sentences total, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use case, auth note, and lookup hint. No filler or redundant details; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it states purpose, use case, auth requirements, and how to obtain the required appid. No invocation-critical information is missing.

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?

The schema fully describes the single appid parameter with examples and the search_store guidance, so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the same search_store hint and provides the query framing, adding little new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already includes.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Get the number of players currently in a game' with 'live concurrent player count for an app'. This distinguishes it from sibling player-data tools like get_player_summary or get_player_achievements, which do not report live concurrent activity.

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?

Explicitly identifies the use case: 'Great for "how many people are playing X right now?"' and points to search_store for finding the appid. It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling directly overlaps live player counts, so clear context suffices.

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