search_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating 'Returns multiple matches ranked by relevance,' which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits details like failure modes, whether the search covers all Steam games or only the user's library, and any rate limit or authentication considerations. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover more ground. It explains the purpose and the return behavior (multiple matches ranked), but does not detail the shape of 'matches' (e.g., whether they include the name plus AppID) or the 'limit' parameter's effect. Core functionality is clear, but coverage has gaps.

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 no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%). The description implicitly explains 'query' as a game title, but 'limit' is entirely unaddressed. Since the description does not compensate for the schema gap on half the parameters, the agent is left guessing what 'limit' controls. This is a significant gap.

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's function: 'Resolve a game title to a Steam AppID.' This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_details or get_library. The phrase 'for other tools' further clarifies its role as a helper utility.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when you know a game's name but need its AppID for other tools.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. The context is clear and actionable.

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