steam_getReviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose important behavioral traits such as rate limits, response format, or pagination handling beyond the cursor input parameter. The description only states that no API key is required, which is positive but insufficient.

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 concise sentence that covers the action, resource, key filters, and an important note about API key requirements. Every part is informative and there is no wasted text.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of review objects with fields) or explain how pagination works despite having a cursor parameter. The note about no API key is helpful but more context on usage is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions filters but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It does not clarify default values or how parameters interact.

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 action (fetch), the resource (user reviews for a Steam app), and lists available filters (language, sentiment, purchase type, pagination). It distinguishes from sibling tools like steam_getAppReviewSummary, which likely provides a summary rather than detailed reviews.

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 mentions that no API key is required, which is helpful. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when detailed reviews are needed versus a summary. No 'when not to use' or specific prerequisites are mentioned.

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