get_steam_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the output format (reviews, scores, counts, text, game info) but omits important details like pagination behavior beyond cursor, error handling for invalid appid, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 in Chinese. It is efficiently worded but lacks structural elements like front-loading the key action or separating usage notes. However, it remains functional and non-redundant.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of pagination (cursor) and filters (day_range only valid with 'all' filter), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the interaction between 'day_range' and 'filter', nor how to use the 'cursor' for multi-page results. More context is needed for correct tool invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the output (formatted review data) but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.

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 retrieves Steam game reviews and game information, specifying the returned data includes review scores, positive/negative counts, review text, and basic game info. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_steam_game', which likely searches for games.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_steam_game'. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the schema alone.

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