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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does that well by listing the many returned data series and their time ranges, such as hourly player history, daily viewer-hours, and Wikipedia pageviews monthly since 2018 and daily. It does not mention rate limits, failure behavior, or exact response formatting, which prevents a 5.

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 key action and key identifier are front-loaded in 'Full profile of one game by Steam app id,' followed by a dense but organized enumeration of data categories. It could be slightly more scannable with bullets, but every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining what the returned profile contains and how to obtain the required app_id. Exact response structure and edge-case behavior are not covered, but the agent can select and invoke the tool correctly from this description.

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 fully documents app_id with type, example value, and required status, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying the profile is keyed by Steam app id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 that this tool returns a full profile of one game identified by Steam app_id, then enumerates the specific data categories included. This differentiates it from search_games and get_summary in the sibling list, so an agent can immediately tell what it is for.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use search_games first if you only know the name,' which establishes when this tool should not be used directly and how to obtain the required app_id. This is concrete, actionable usage guidance tied to a named alternative.

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