game_get_full_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool aggregates data from two sources and returns metadata plus visual assets in one request, which is useful, but it does not describe return structure, failure modes, or source-priority behavior.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The core behavior and data sources are front-loaded, and the recommendation is concise and actionable.

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 simple one-parameter schema and read-only nature implied by 'Get,' the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks an output schema, but the mention of metadata and specific visual asset types gives a reasonable picture of what will be returned. A bit more detail about response contents would push it higher, but it is not necessary for basic invocation.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as 'The game name to search for,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: a comprehensive game profile combining Steam metadata with SteamGridDB visual assets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_get_details or steamgrid_get_assets by emphasizing aggregation into a single request.

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 states it is 'the recommended tool for getting a complete overview of a game,' which gives a reasonably clear use case. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the context of when to choose this tool is apparent from the 'complete overview' framing.

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