steam_search_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a list, without mentioning read-only status, rate limits, pagination, or edge cases. For a search operation, this is minimal and does not add context beyond the obvious.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose and return value with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is functionally adequate. It conveys the core purpose and return. However, it does not mention any caveats, such as the read-only nature, result ordering, or how to chain with other tools like steam_get_details. These gaps are minor given the low complexity but prevent a higher score.

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 covers both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters—it does not clarify the query format, limit behavior, or how they interact. The schema already handles this adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('video games on Steam'), and the expected return ('a list of matching games with their App IDs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like steamgrid_search_game and screenscraper_search_game by naming the platform (Steam).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to find a Steam game by name), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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