get_user_game_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds what is returned (summary + achievements with rarity %, or summary rows per game_ids entry), but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or the default-filtering behavior of the achievements field.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs both operational modes efficiently with no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate, though the density leaves semantic gaps rather than trimming redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters, 33% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits default filtering ('locked' achievements), pagination, and the optional parameters. Annotations cover the safety profile but not enough of the calling contract.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate for roughly six undocumented parameters, yet it explains only the game_id vs game_ids output distinction. Critical params like achievements ('locked' default), limit, offset, images, and include_rank are left unaddressed.

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 verb+resource ('User's progress in one game') and distinguishes the two output modes: full details for game_id versus summary rows for game_ids. It does not name siblings like get_user_unlocks or get_achievement_unlocks, so an agent must infer differentiation from the resource alone.

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?

Usage is only implied through the parameter-dependent modes: one game produces summary+achievements, game_ids produces summary rows. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as get_user_unlocks or get_user_games, and no exclusions are stated.

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