get_player_bans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the ban categories and the API key requirement, but it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or how ban results are structured; the output schema covers the return structure.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, the practical use case, and a critical prerequisite (API key). There is no filler or repetition of schema information, so 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 a rich input schema, strong safety annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary selection context: what it checks, when it is useful, and what authentication is required. Nothing essential 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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including multiple formats, examples, and a thorough description of accepted Steam ID forms. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource (a player's VAC, game, economy, and community ban status), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_summary or get_steam_level. It states exactly what information the tool retrieves.

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?

The description gives clear context ('Useful for trust/reputation questions') that helps an agent decide when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use-case guidance is sufficient for most selection scenarios.

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