discover_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that it returns AppIDs and filters by ownership, which is useful. But it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or whether it's strictly read-only. The behavior is largely implied by 'Find' and 'Returns', but gaps remain around what happens with missing steam_id or how ownership is determined.

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?

Two sentences, directly front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundant phrasing. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must detail return values and edge cases. It mentions AppIDs but does not explain pagination, default max_results, the meaning of country_code, or the definition of 'well-reviewed'. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is incomplete for a reliable agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only implicitly covers 'tags' (matching specific tags). The other parameters (steam_id, max_results, country_code) are left entirely unexplained, and the schema provides no descriptions. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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: 'Find well-reviewed games on Steam matching specific tags that the user does NOT own.' It specifies the resource (Steam games), the criteria (tags, not owned, well-reviewed), and the output (AppIDs). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_games (which likely searches without ownership filtering) and recommend_from_library.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use when looking for new purchases.' It also directs the user to pass AppIDs to itad-mcp for pricing/deals. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it's clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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