Get game reviews

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by noting 'Keyless' (no authentication) and specifying that it returns 'Score breakdown plus the text of the most helpful reviews,' giving insight into the selection mechanism. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context such as the notion of 'helpful' reviews.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core functionality (score breakdown and reviews) and then adding a clear use case. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content ('score breakdown plus the text of the most helpful reviews') and the purpose. It does not mention pagination or potential errors, but given the simplicity and the presence of a 'samples' parameter to control volume, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (appid as 'Steam app id.' and samples as 'How many review texts to return. Default 6.'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'get_game_reviews' returns a score breakdown and review texts for a single game. It clearly differentiates itself from tag-based tools by stating 'which tags alone cannot tell you,' and the phrase 'for one game' distinguishes it from broader tooling. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to judge whether a game actually delivers on a specific preference (pacing, difficulty, story, how well it runs).' It also contrasts with an alternative (tags), implicitly stating when tags are insufficient. Although it doesn't name sibling tools directly, the contrast with tags provides clear usage context and a condition for selection.

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