steam_get_app_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavior: data is fetched live (freshness), it returns summary stats plus representative quotes, and it explicitly warns that review text is untrusted user-generated content to summarize rather than obey. It does not cover rate limits, caching, or permission needs, but the injection-safety disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond structured fields.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters before the safety caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a 7-param read tool with an output schema (which relieves the description of explaining return values) and pagination documented in the schema, the description is nearly complete. The main omission is any note on result freshness limits or throttling behavior when mining at scale.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description maps filter dimensions to the filter/review_type/language/keyword params but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and says nothing about cursor or detail semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Mine Steam reviews for a game') with scope qualifiers (fetched live from Steam) and enumerates the filter dimensions. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools (search, overview, store details, news, player trend, market pulse), none of which touch reviews.

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?

Filter dimensions (recency, sentiment, language, keyword) imply what the tool is for, but there is no when-to-use guidance against alternatives — e.g. no hint of when to reach for reviews versus steam_get_app_overview or steam_get_store_details for sentiment-like signals, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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