steam_getAppReviewSummary

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns only summary stats, no individual reviews, and no API key required. It does not mention potential rate limits or response format, but for a simple read-only retrieval, the information provided is adequate and consistent.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned, what is not, and highlights no API key requirement. No additional context is needed for effective use.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (appid) with description 'Steam application ID', so the schema already provides the meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond contextualizing the appid as 'Steam app', but does not enhance semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'review summary statistics for a Steam app', listing specific outputs (positive/negative counts, review score, score description) and explicitly states what is not returned ('No individual reviews returned'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling steam_getReviews.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for summary statistics) and explicitly states a limitation ('No individual reviews returned'), which hints that steam_getReviews should be used for individual reviews. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, leaving some inference needed.

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