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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuinely new operational context: a credit cost of 1 per record with a minimum of 2, and the implication that page_size drives spend. It doesn't discuss rate limits or failure modes, so a 4 is right.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then sort/selection behavior, then the cost caveat, then the routing suggestion. No filler; each clause carries actionable 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the cost model, selection and sorting guidance, and a discovery path to the sibling tool, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond it: the credit-per-record cost attaches an economic meaning to page_size that the schema does not convey. app_id and sort semantics largely repeat the schema wording, limiting the uplift.

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 (per-game Steam achievement records) with the added scope of global unlock percentages. The closing pointer to datasets_steam_games_search makes the boundary with the sibling discovery tool explicit.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: pass app_id to select a game, pick a sort mode by intent, and use datasets_steam_games_search for discovery. It names the alternative but does not state any when-not-to-use exclusions.

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