get_player_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: private profiles return limited fields, and the currently playing game is only returned 'if public'. It also states the API key requirement, which is an authorization detail not present in annotations.

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?

The description is tightly written: a one-line purpose statement, followed by a compact list of returned fields, then privacy and authorization notes. No redundant or filler words. The main function is front-loaded, making it quick to parse.

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 present, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns, privacy behavior, and authorization. The only missing piece is guidance on when to choose it over siblings, but that is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, and it is exhaustive: steam_id accepts multiple formats (SteamID64, STEAM_1, URL, vanity name). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'player's public profile summary', and lists specific fields returned (persona name, online state, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools in intent, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from them by name or contrasting scope, so it does not earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that an API key is required, but gives no context, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_steam_level or get_player_bans. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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