steam_get_app_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the specificity of 'recent' and examples but no additional behavioral context like return format or pagination. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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 (13 words) with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, so the description plus schema and annotations provide adequate completeness. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. Minor gap: no mention of default count or response format, but these are in the schema. The lack of usage guidance is the only notable shortfall.

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% because the description mentions none of the parameters (appid, count, response_format). While the schema itself includes descriptions for each parameter, the description adds no value beyond the schema. The rubric requires compensation at low coverage, which is absent here.

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 explicitly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'recent news/update posts for a game', with clarifying examples 'patch notes, announcements'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_get_app_details or steam_get_app_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?

The description gives no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The only context is the purpose itself, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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