steam_analyze_game

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the data scope. 'Latest update's effect' is ambiguous, and the description does not disclose how the aggregation works, whether results may be partial, or what the response structure looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description carries a heavier burden that it does not meet.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core value proposition ('One-call brief on a game') and then lists the covered data points. It is efficient and free of filler, though the dense list could benefit from slight structuring.

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 tool that aggregates many data sources, the description is incomplete: it does not specify return format, whether all listed data points are always present, what 'latest update's effect' means, or how country_code affects results. The lack of an output schema makes these gaps more significant.

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 only describes appid; country_code and response_format are undocumented. The description adds no parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of country_code and the difference between markdown and json output. With schema coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states a specific action ('One-call brief') and resource ('a game'), and enumerates the data dimensions covered: price, reviews, players, Deck, tags, update effect, and news. This distinguishes it from single-purpose sibling tools like steam_get_app_reviews or steam_get_deck_compatibility, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

'One-call brief' implies this is for getting a broad overview in a single call rather than a deep dive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as steam_get_app_reviews for detailed review analysis or steam_get_update_impact for update-specific details.

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