Get game reviews

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

Discloses two important behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: reviews over 600 characters are truncated, and the summary fields (score label, totals, %) are only computed when type='all'—filtering to positive/negative nulls those fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient sentences: purpose, key behavioral detail, and cross-references to alternatives and prerequisites. No wasted words, front-loaded with core information.

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, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, behavioral quirks, when to use alternatives, and authentication requirements. No gaps remain.

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 does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, though it reinforces the usage of appid from search_games. The truncation note relates to output, not parameters.

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 tool retrieves review summaries and recent reviews for a game by appid, with specific detail on what is included (score label, counts, percentage). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_review_histogram by contrasting snapshot vs. trend, and cross-references search_games for obtaining the 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?

Explicitly tells when to use an alternative: 'For long-term trend instead of a snapshot, use get_review_histogram.' Also instructs where to get the required appid: 'Get the appid from search_games.' Additionally mentions 'No API key required,' which is a helpful usage note.

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