steam_get_reviews_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'Get' operation and describes output contents, but it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or the exact shape of the response, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two compact sentences that state the action, target, and output contents with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately sets expectations by naming the outputs: overall score and top review snippets. It could include response-format details, but nothing critical is missing for invoking 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 coverage is 100% and the appid parameter is already described as 'The Steam App ID of the game.' The description only restates this ('by its App ID'), adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource ('user reviews and ratings for a specific Steam game by its App ID') and states what is returned ('overall score and top review snippets'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_get_game_news or steam_get_details.

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?

It is clear you should call this when you have an App ID and want review/rating summary data, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer (e.g., steam_get_details for full metadata). The context is implied rather than stated.

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