get_badge_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'progress' which implies read-only status checking, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether this requires special permissions. For a tool accessing user-specific Steam data, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does, but lacks context about authentication, response format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. The absence of output schema means the agent won't know what data structure to expect from this call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - no clarification about badge crafting mechanics, progress metrics, or how the parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Get' and resource 'progress on community badge crafting (trading cards)', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_badges' - while 'progress' suggests more detailed status than just listing badges, this distinction isn't explicitly stated.

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 like 'get_badges' or other Steam data tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from the tool name alone.

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