get_app_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It implies a read operation by naming 'get' and listing metadata fields, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid appid, or effects of the country_code parameter. It adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and data fields, then adds practical usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only a bare input schema. The description provides the key return fields and use case, but omits an explanation of country_code and any behavioral details like error responses or whether authentication is needed. For a tool with this limited schema context, the description is not complete enough.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters. 'appid' is only implied by 'specific game,' and 'country_code' is completely unmentioned, leaving the agent to guess its purpose (likely regional pricing). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 returns full Steam Store metadata for a specific game, listing concrete fields like description, genres, price, and Metacritic score. It implies a distinct resource and differentiates from siblings like get_app_reviews and search_games by focusing on raw metadata rather than reviews or search results.

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?

It instructs the agent to use this tool when evaluating a specific candidate, providing a clear use case. It also suggests pairing with get_app_reviews for sentiment and opencritic-mcp for critic scores, which gives context for complementary tools. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the guidance is sufficient.

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