get_app_reviews

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 explains what the tool returns (rating, total reviews, positive ratio) and implicitly indicates a read operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, data freshness, or limitations, which is a minor gap given the simple read-only nature.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the verb, resource, and specific output fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context by naming the return fields and the domain (Steam reviews). It is somewhat minimal but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from a brief note about how 'summaries' are calculated or aggregated.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'appId' is already well described as 'The numeric Steam AppID'. The description adds only general context about Steam reviews, but no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Get Steam player review summaries' and lists specific output elements (review score rating, total reviews, positive ratio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_store and get_store_details, which focus on different data.

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 implies usage when review summaries are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced in the description, so guidance is only implied from the clear purpose.

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