Batch store card for many games

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: unknown/invalid appids are returned as available:false rather than dropped, compatibility fields are explained (including the important distinction between steam_frame and vr_support), and discount_end is defined as ISO UTC time. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides critical runtime expectations.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and then details each returned field, with disambiguation and alternative tool references. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some field explanations might be redundant given the output schema exists. Overall it is well-structured but slightly verbose for a tool with a full schema.

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?

The description is comprehensive: it covers the purpose, batch limit (implied by schema and restated), invalid appid behavior, detailed field semantics, and points to sibling tools for discovery and price-only batches. It leaves no ambiguity about how to use this tool within the broader tool ecosystem.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (appids 1-50, country, language), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful input-related context: invalid appids are tolerated and returned as rows, and the 'keyless call' note clarifies no authentication is needed. However, it does not add much about country/language beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get price/discount, review % (positive), hardware compatibility, popular user tags and release date for a LIST of games by appid in ONE keyless call.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing batch handling of an existing appid list, and explicitly names alternatives such as get_prices and discover_games.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it calls itself 'The efficient way to price-, rating-, tag- and compat-check a wishlist or library without a request per game.' It also states when to use alternatives ('For a bigger batch (up to 250 appids) when you only need price, use get_prices instead') and how to obtain appids ('Get appids from search_games / get_wishlist / get_owned_games').

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