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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that—a credit cost model (1 credit per record, minimum 2) and the advice to size page_size accordingly—which is information the agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then cost, then the alternative-lookup caveat. 'Results contain enriched public catalog records' is slightly filler, but overall it is tight and well-ordered.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials—purpose, cost, and positioning versus live lookups—making it complete enough to call correctly for a 29-parameter tool.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value by tying page_size to billing cost ('1 credit per record returned (minimum 2), so keep page_size to what you need'), a tradeoff the schema's bare 'max 100' does not convey.

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+resource (search the stored Steam games dataset) and scopes it by title and filters. It also distinguishes itself from a live Steam Store lookup, which separates it from the steam_search family, though it does not name the sibling datasets_steam_games_item/facets tools explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use this for indexed discovery rather than a live Steam Store lookup,' which is a clear when-to-use versus alternative condition. It lacks guidance on when to prefer the facet or item siblings, so it stops short of full coverage.

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