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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or return format. It does add useful context about returning bundled endpoints, but lacks depth about behavior beyond the obvious 'list' semantics.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the action and resource, the second provides a relevant alternative. Every word earns its place, no redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (packages and bundled endpoints) and points to get_pricing for related needs. It could explicitly note the read-only nature, but that is implicitly clear from the name and minimal complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything vacuously. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters.

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 tool's function: listing steamwebapi.com product packages and the endpoints each bundles. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints, which likely lists endpoints directly.

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 explicitly directs users to use get_pricing for paid plans, request quotas, and upgrade guidance, which provides clear alternatives to this tool. This tells agents when not to use list_products and points them to the appropriate sibling.

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