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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar. The description adds that results are enriched public catalog records from an indexed snapshot rather than live data, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about rate limits, freshness, or result-shape behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the data-freshness caveat and alternative routing. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 no explanation, and all 29 parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, data nature, and the live-vs-indexed distinction, leaving only sibling-level routing (facets/item) unaddressed.

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% across all 29 parameters, so the schema fully documents query, filters, sort, and pagination. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already structured, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (the stored Steam games dataset) plus the primary axes (title and filters). It clearly separates itself from the live Steam Store lookup, though it does not differentiate from its own dataset siblings such as datasets_steam_games_facets or datasets_steam_games_item.

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?

Gives explicit routing context: use this for indexed discovery rather than a live Steam Store lookup, naming the alternative it is not. It stops short of explaining when to prefer the facets or item siblings, so exclusions are only partial.

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