steam_get_app_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds no unique behavioral context (e.g., default language behavior or potential large responses) beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. The promotional clause 'the best tell me about X tool' is short and adds usage context without waste.

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 a rich schema, output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It communicates the core purpose but relies on the schema to convey optional parameters and response formats.

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 tool description does not mention any parameter semantics; the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for appid, language, country_code, etc. Because the schema carries the parameter documentation weight, the description adds little value, but the nested parameters are well-described.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') with a clear resource ('comprehensive store details for a game'). The added clause 'the best tell me about X tool' distinguishes it as a general-purpose game info tool compared to siblings like steam_get_app_reviews or steam_get_deck_compatibility.

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 positioning as 'the best tell me about X tool' provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like steam_get_app_reviews or steam_get_app_tags, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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