get_steam_forum_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains timestamp semantics for original posts vs replies, the ?ctp=N pagination mechanism, and the special behavior where a stub linking to an announcement article is followed to return the full body. It does not discuss rate limits, auth, or error handling, but the behavioral disclosures given are specific and non-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 three compact sentences that front-load the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information (timestamp guidance, supported surfaces, stub-following). It is slightly dense with subordinate clauses but no sentence is wasted.

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 fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timestamp semantics, pagination, supported surfaces, and a special fallback behavior. Nothing critical for correct invocation or interpretation appears missing.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, and the description only reinforces the pagination syntax with '?ctp=N'. It adds the note about following stub links which is more behavioral than parameter-specific, and does not elaborate on fetch_all_pages beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides full parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Fetches') and resource ('a public Steam Community topic') and immediately scopes what is returned ('original post and replies'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_steam_forum_topics (which lists) and get_steam_review (different resource).

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 clearly states what this tool is for and includes a crucial decision rule: use topic.original_post_timestamp rather than listing activity for publication-date claims. It enumerates compatible surfaces (General Discussions, Events & Announcements), giving context on applicability, but does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead for other tasks.

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