compare_games

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to. It contributes the 2-8 game bound, which is a real constraint absent from the schema (the array has no minItems/maxItems), and it discloses the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema. It doesn't say what happens if fewer than 2 or more than 8 IDs are supplied.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and the cardinality constraint, followed by the value list. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well to enumerate return fields and the batch size. However, with zero schema coverage it leaves the country parameter unexplained and gives no guidance on identifier format or out-of-range handling, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 carries full burden. It partially compensates by implying app_ids is an array of 2-8 game identifiers, but never says these are Steam app IDs (e.g., versus names or slugs), and the country parameter is never mentioned at all despite directly affecting the 'price' dimension.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('side-by-side comparison of 2-8 games') and enumerates the exact dimensions compared (price, release date, genres, review score, current players), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It stops short of naming sibling tools, so distinction from game_details or regional_prices relies on inference from the field set.

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 batch/comparison framing implies when this is appropriate (multiple games at once versus a single-game lookup), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_games, game_details, or regional_prices. Usage must be inferred from the scope wording rather than stated.

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