Get game details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'No API key required' and the name-resolution behavior ('a title is resolved to the closest store match'). It does not detail pagination or error behavior, but the output schema covers return format, so this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and lists the included fields without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, how to identify the game, and authentication requirements. It lacks explicit error handling or alternative-use guidance, but these are not critical for a read-only lookup tool with rich schema support, so it is nearly complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including the appid-wins-if-both-given rule. The description merely restates the two identifier options without adding new syntactic or semantic details, so it does not elevate above the schema baseline.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full store details for one game'), and enumerates the specific fields included (description, price/discount, genres, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the identification methods (appid or name) and explicitly notes that it returns a highlighted-achievements sample, which is unique among the sibling list.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('Get full store details for one game') and provides an integration hint by mentioning 'from search_games' to obtain appid. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases (e.g., get_prices for prices only), so it falls short of the highest bar, but the intended usage is well implied.

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