Get game reviews

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a concrete behavioral trait: 'Review text over 600 characters is truncated.' It also notes 'No API key required,' addressing authentication expectations. There is 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds distinct information: what it returns, a behavioral caveat, and usage alternatives/prerequisites. No wasted words.

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, return values are fully described there. The description covers prerequisites, alternatives, and a key edge case (truncation), making it complete for a read-only retrieval tool. The presence of annotations and a well-described schema round out the context.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including detailed descriptions for type, limit, and review_language. The description adds value by telling the agent to get appid from search_games, which is a useful provenance hint not present in 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 clearly specifies the resource ('game reviews') and the exact output ('summary (score label, positive/negative counts, %) and a few recent reviews'), with a precise parameter ('by appid'). It also distinguishes this tool from get_review_histogram, making the purpose 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for a snapshot) and when not to (for long-term trends, use get_review_histogram). It also directs the agent to search_games for obtaining the appid and notes that no API key is required, covering prerequisites and alternatives.

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