steam_get_deck_compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the possible rating categories, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as API call behavior, rate limits, or handling of invalid appids. With annotations present, the description provides some value beyond them, earning a 3.

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 of 14 words, immediately stating what the tool does and the possible output values. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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, with only one required parameter and an output schema present. Annotations cover safety, and the schema documents optional parameters. The description states the output values. It is complete enough for this simple lookup, though it does not explicitly mention the optional parameters, which are already documented in the schema.

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 itself provides descriptions for all parameters (appid, language, response_format), so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already gives, hence the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool returns the Steam Deck rating for a game and enumerates the exact possible values (Verified, Playable, Unsupported, Unknown). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools, as none other mention 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 description implies usage for checking a game's Steam Deck compatibility but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not name any alternative tools or provide exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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