steam_charts_most_played

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default enrichment behavior, the option to pass enrich=false, and that it uses a credential-free public JSON API. This adds meaningful context about what happens under different parameter states.

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 compact at four sentences, with key information front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists between the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient 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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, parameter effects, and public access. The omitted details about 'l' and 'cc' formats are adequately covered in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward chart retrieval.

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. The description adds value by explaining the enrich parameter's default behavior and the batch lookup mechanism, going beyond the schema's simple 'Attach game name and review summary' description.

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 specifies the tool gets 'Steam's weekly most-played games chart' and lists the data fields (rank, appid, previous-week rank, peak players). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like steam_charts_concurrent or steam_charts_top_releases.

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 mentions the enrich parameter behavior but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other Steam chart tools. No alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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