Get game details

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds meaningful context: 'Keyless' clarifies no authentication is needed, and 'optionally Steam Deck compatibility. Slower' discloses a performance trade-off. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, then lists the returned fields compactly. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only detail tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the main return fields, the auth requirement, and the optional slower behavior. It does not describe response shape or error cases, but the absence of an output schema makes the field list reasonably sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents appids and include_deck_compat. The description mentions 'one or more games by appid' and the optional deck flag, but adds no extra semantic detail 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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Full detail for one or more games by appid', and enumerates the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_game_reviews and search_games by emphasizing full detail keyed by appid.

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 implies usage: call this when you have Steam appids and need comprehensive game details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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