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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world operation, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: tags are ANDed rather than ORed, results are ordered by tag prominence then popularity, and adult-only titles are never returned.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences lead with the primary action, then qualification rules, then filters and ordering guarantees. Every clause carries distinct information (AND semantics, ordering, adult exclusion) with no redundancy against 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary. For a 7-parameter, zero-required discovery tool the description covers the composition rules, ordering, and exclusion policy; only cross-tool routing guidance is absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that all supplied tags must apply, that 'like' consumes a Steam app id resolved via precomputed similar games, and that review-count and positive-% floors are optional filters rather than requirements.

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 states a specific verb+resource (discover Steam games) and enumerates the two discovery modes: community tags and 'like' similarity. It is clear about what the tool does, but never names or contrasts with the siblings (fetch, new_games, search), so an agent must infer the boundary from the description 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 implied through the tag/like combination mechanics ('up to 4, all must apply', 'and/or'), which tells the agent how the modes compose. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over new_games or search, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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