steam_recommend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by noting it 'explains the shared tags' and supports two distinct input modes (seed game vs. user taste), which goes beyond what the annotations or schema alone convey.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Recommend games similar to...'), provides concrete examples, and includes the usage alternative inline. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose, use cases, input modes, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema allows the description to avoid explaining return values. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is reported as 0% because the top-level 'params' wraps a $ref, but the nested schema actually contains detailed descriptions for most fields. The description does add conceptual meaning by mapping 'seed game' to seed_appid and 'user's taste' to steamid, but it omits other parameters like limit, max_price, and response_format. Since the schema carries most of the parameter semantics, the description provides only partial added value.

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's function: recommend games similar to a seed game or a user's taste, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool steam_discover ('for filtered search use steam_discover'). This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and differentiates from alternatives.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'games like X' and 'what should I play', and directly points to the alternative steam_discover for filtered search. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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