steam_get_package_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, giving a clear safety profile. The description adds the domain clarification about packages but no further behavioral quirks. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that precisely states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

For a read-only fetch tool with a rich schema, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks usage differentiation and some regional-pricing context, but those are already covered by the schema and sibling context.

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 parameters, while the schema itself provides solid descriptions for packageid, country_code, and response_format. With 0% parameter coverage in the description, it fails to compensate, though the schema handles most of the burden.

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') and names a precise resource ('store details for a Steam package'), clarifying that a package is a sub/bundle of games. This distinguishes it from sibling app-related tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative like steam_get_app_details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as steam_get_app_details or steam_get_dlc. It only defines what a package is, not the contexts that favor this tool.

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