get_steam_level

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the useful behavioral note that an API key is required, which is beyond the structured annotations and schema. It does not detail rate limits or error behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 two sentences and every word earns its place. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a necessary prerequisite. No fluff or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 complete parameter schema and an output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. The API key note is a useful extra context, and the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already covers the single parameter completely, including accepted formats and examples. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail because it is unnecessary. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 identifies the specific verb ('Get'), the resource ('a player's Steam community level'), and includes a necessary prerequisite. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_player_summary, which might also surface user data.

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 verb 'Get' implies that this tool is used when a caller needs a player's Steam level, providing a baseline sense of when to invoke it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternative mention, and no context about how the API key should be supplied.

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