list_steam_forum_topics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: last_activity_timestamp/last_activity_display are explicitly 'never original publication time,' and some surfaces (Events & Announcements) omit row-level author and preview markup, so those fields may be null. It still omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit or pagination-termination 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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then pagination mechanics, then the timestamp caveat, then the null-field caveat. No filler, though the pagination sentence overlaps with schema text and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (last_activity_timestamp, last_activity_display, author, preview) and their caveats, which compensates for the missing output contract. It is near-complete for a listing tool, missing only auth/permission context and pagination end conditions.

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 page, appid, forum_key and section_id are already documented in the schema, including the ?fp=N convention. The description's mention of '?fp=N' and section selection largely restates what the schema already says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (Lists) + resource (topics) + scope (a game's public Steam Community discussion section or compatible app hub forum surface). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_steam_forum_sections (lists sections, not topics) and get_steam_forum_topic (retrieves one topic), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear when-not and an explicit alternative: 'Call get_steam_forum_topic and use topic.original_post_timestamp before making publication-date claims.' It also frames section selection as a usage condition. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over list_steam_forum_sections or how pagination terminates, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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