steam_should_i_buy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting it aggregates multiple data sources in one call and includes taste match, but it doesn't address edge cases like invalid appids, regional price differences, or how taste match behaves without a steamid. No contradiction with 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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Decide whether to buy ONE specific game') and follows with compact, meaningful detail. Every clause earns its place, with 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?

For a tool with moderate complexity, an existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides enough orientation for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It clearly scopes the tool and hints at personalization, though it could be more complete by naming alternative tools or handling failure cases explicitly.

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 implies that appid identifies the specific game and that taste match relates to the optional steamid, but it doesn't explicitly name or explain parameters like country_code or response_format. Schema coverage is 0% by the given signal, so the description should compensate, but it only partially does by giving context for the core inputs.

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 ('Decide whether to buy') and resource ('ONE specific game') and lists the exact data sources included (price, reviews, tags, Metacritic, taste match). It explicitly differentiates from discovery tools by stating 'for evaluating a single known game, not finding new ones,' distinguishing it clearly from siblings like steam_discover or steam_search_apps.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for evaluating one specific known game. It also gives an explicit when-not with 'not finding new ones,' but it does not name alternative tools (e.g., steam_discover or steam_search_apps) as the rubric's top tier would require.

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