get_store_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves read-only storefront metadata and lists output fields, which is transparent about the expected result. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or failure cases, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with parenthetical examples of fields. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter getter, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope and return content by listing key fields. It lacks an explicit return type but is otherwise sufficient.

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 fully documents appId with an example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming it identifies a game, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a resource 'detailed Steam storefront metadata' and enumerates expected fields (genres, categories, description, developers, metacritic, release date), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_store (discovery) and get_app_reviews (reviews).

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings is provided. The phrasing implies it is for fetching known app details, but there is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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