get_steam_game_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that metadata is English-only and that the detailed description is cleaned into plain text for LLM consumption, which is genuine behavioral context. It omits failure modes (invalid appid, missing games) and any rate-limit or auth notes.

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 tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing sentence about plain-text cleaning is mildly ancillary but earns its place as behavioral context.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the returned fields and notes the text-cleaning behavior, so an agent knows what to expect. It is adequate, though it could say more about scope limits or errors.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the appid parameter is already documented. The description only restates it as 'a specific app' and adds no format or value guidance, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieves game metadata for a Steam app) and enumerates the returned fields (release date, developers, publishers, genres, price), which makes the scope concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_steam_review, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_steam_review even though reviews differ from metadata. Usage is only implied by the tool name and field list.

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