deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only offers tags like 'Sale checks' and 'library value' and does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, required context, or return behavior.

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 short, but it is an under-specified comma-separated fragment rather than a structured, informative definition. It repeats the tool's general concept without earning its place through added operational detail.

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 four actions, four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to support correct invocation. It gives a rough sense of the tool's purpose but lacks critical context about action-specific parameters, expected results, and invocation requirements.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain name, appid, steamid, or the action values beyond broad topical hints, leaving agents to infer parameter usage from the schema alone.

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 names the domain—sale checks, wishlist, deals, library value—which loosely maps to the action enum. However, it is a fragment with no verb or explicit 'does X' structure, so it does not clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from siblings like library or 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as library, games, or insights. It lists possible topics but never states conditions, exclusions, or which action should be chosen in which scenario.

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