get_player_peers

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It only enumerates output fields and does not disclose ordering, default limits, read-only safety, or how peers are defined. This lack of behavioral detail could mislead an agent about result sorting or constraints.

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 short, front-loaded phrase that wastes no words and conveys the core output. Though not a full sentence, it is efficient and easy to parse, with all key information presented first.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and scope, but it omits ordering, default result count, and the meaning of 'played with most' (e.g., sorted by games together). For a simple list endpoint this is workable, but richer context would improve call correctness.

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?

Input schema documentation covers 100% of the parameters (account_id and limit), so the description adds little beyond schema. The schema already explains account_id as a Steam32 id and limit as max results, satisfying the baseline for parameter clarity.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource ('players this player has played with most') and lists the output fields (names, games together, wins, win rate), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the wording is specific enough to distinguish from player stats endpoints like get_player_heroes or get_player_totals.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as get_player_pros or get_player_hero_rankings, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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