steam_search_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the return fields and gives an example, but does not disclose potential edge cases like empty results, API rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only search, this is adequate but leaves room for additional behavioral detail.

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 concise two-sentence explanation with an example, containing no filler. The main action and return fields are front-loaded, followed by usage context and a practical example, making every sentence earn its place.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and usage context adequately. It could improve by mentioning error/empty handling, but the provided information is largely complete for the task of searching for a game and obtaining its AppID.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by including a concrete example ('search "Counter-Strike" to get AppID 730') and by explaining the purpose of the result (AppID needed for other tools), which goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Searches for games on Steam by name') and resource (Steam games), and specifies the return fields (AppID, name, price, discount, Metacritic score). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on game lookup rather than player/user data, and the example reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to find a game's AppID before calling other tools that require it.' This provides a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion scenarios. The guidance is sufficient for the agent to understand it's a prerequisite lookup tool.

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