get_steam_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'returns formatted review data' including specific elements like scores and texts, which is helpful. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'retrieves' implies it).

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and return value. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second describes the return format. There's no unnecessary repetition or verbose language, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks important contextual information about behavioral traits, error handling, and usage scenarios. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'basic game information' which isn't explicitly in the parameter documentation, but doesn't provide additional parameter context or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: retrieving reviews and game information for a specific Steam application. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'reviews and game information', and distinguishes the scope with 'for a specific Steam application'. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit statements about appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. While no sibling tools exist, the description fails to mention any usage scenarios or constraints beyond what's implied by the purpose.

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