search_games

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return data structure and notes that English searches are more accurate. However, it does not explain matching behavior, error handling, or other edge cases that could affect agent expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a list of return fields, a search tip, and an example. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return data, and usage guidance. It lacks explicit boundary conditions (e.g., max count is already in schema) but is otherwise complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the 'query' works best in English and by providing a concrete usage example with 'query="action", count=25'.

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 'Steam에서 게임을 검색합니다' (Searches for games on Steam) with a specific verb and resource. It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve specific game data or user profiles.

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 provides practical search tips: using English or App ID for better accuracy, and includes a usage example. It implies when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you need to find a game by name), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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