steam_search_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that results come from a live store search (not cached), that up to `limit` candidates are returned as appid + name, and that they are ordered best-match-first. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on zero matches, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the routing rule. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs for selection or invocation.

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 2-parameter search tool with an output schema already covering return structure, the description supplies the missing pieces: the live-search semantics, the result count and ordering, and the resolution flow relative to sibling tools. Nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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 50% — `query` is documented in-schema, but `limit` has only structural bounds and no description. The description compensates by explaining that `limit` caps the number of returned candidates, and it clarifies the query is a game name rather than an AppID. That adds real meaning 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?

States a specific verb (find/search) and resource (Steam game by name) and names the mechanism (Steam's live store search). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from all siblings by noting every other steam_* tool accepts an AppID, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives the exact triggering condition: 'Call this whenever you have a game name but no AppID.' It also states the alternative path (AppID preferred, exact name accepted) used by sibling tools, which is precisely the when/when-not guidance an agent needs to choose between this and the steam_get_* tools.

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