Get prices for many games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: rows preserve input order, unavailable appids are marked available:false and never dropped, and each row includes final/initial price and discount_percent (or is_free). It also notes no API key is required, which is non-obvious.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence adds critical information: purpose, batch capacity, alternatives, output ordering and availability handling, and API key requirements. It is front-loaded with purpose and perfectly sized for a tool with this 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?

With an output schema present, the description still goes beyond it by explaining row ordering, unavailable handling, and the exact fields returned. It also covers rate limits (250 appids), usage alternatives, and authentication requirement (none). This is complete for a batch price-lookup tool.

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 the explanation carries little burden. Still, the description adds extra context by suggesting where to get appids (search_games or get_wishlist) and implicitly explains the purpose of the batch. This is more than the schema provides, though not substantial.

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 'Get current price and discount for a batch of games by appid in one call', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with get_items for additional data like reviews or tags.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (checking a wishlist for deals), a hard limit (250 appids), and names an alternative (get_items for review %, hardware compatibility, tags). It also directs users on how to obtain appids via search_games or get_wishlist, fully covering usage context.

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