steam_get_store_highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the section list, and that list is incomplete (missing 'specials'). No mention of rate limits, regional pricing behavior, or output format defaults, leaving the description to add minimal value beyond 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource clearly and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the primary function but leaves gaps: missing 'specials', no usage differentiation from near-neighbor tools, and no mention of default response format. The schema fills many details, but the description alone is not sufficiently complete given the dense sibling toolset.

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 description does not explain limit, country_code, or response_format. It partially covers the 'section' parameter but omits the 'specials' option. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate for parameter ambiguity, but it does not, forcing the agent to rely on the nested schema definitions.

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 ('List') and resource ('Steam storefront section'), and names three concrete sections (top sellers, new releases, coming soon). This distinguishes it from siblings like steam_get_featured_specials. However, it omits 'specials' which is a valid section in the schema, creating a minor clarity gap.

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 when to use this tool (when you need a standard storefront list like top sellers or new releases) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of how it differs from similar tools such as steam_get_featured_specials or steam_discover.

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