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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention of what the record contains, whether the dataset is a snapshot vs live, or what happens on an unknown appid (error vs empty). For a dataset lookup this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described and the 1-param schema is fully documented, so the core call is covered. What is missing is the sibling routing (search vs facets vs item) and any note on dataset scope, which an agent needs to pick this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already gives the appid description and example ('570'), so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that appid is the key, adding no format or validity guidance beyond the schema.

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 phrase 'Steam games dataset record by appid' names the resource and the lookup key, so the intent (fetch one Steam game record) is inferable. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from the sibling `datasets_steam_games_search` / `datasets_steam_games_facets`, which also serve Steam game data. Adequate but vague at the edges.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus `datasets_steam_games_search` (query by name/text) or `datasets_steam_games_facets` (browse dimensions). The 'by appid' phrasing hints at single-record retrieval, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the name.

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