search_app_discussions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are grouped by thread, matchingPostsObserved counts only the fetched sample, author/date describe each match rather than thread creation, community claims are not verification, and pagination is bounded. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, result shape, counting semantics, verification caveat, return fields, pagination behavior, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the most important scoping and read-only facts. It could be slightly more compact, but the density is justified given the number of non-obvious behaviors.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what is searched, what the results mean, what is not verified, and how pagination works. It also names the sibling for fetching a thread. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact shape of the returned provenance/availability fields, but it explicitly names them, which is enough for an agent to proceed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults, constraints, and the pagination.nextPage hint. The description adds some context by explaining that author/date describe each match and that results are grouped by thread, which helps interpret query results, but it doesn't add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource ('public Steam Community discussions for one app'), and immediately distinguishes it from a general Steam search by scoping it to one app. It also names the sibling fetch_discussion_thread and explains the relationship, so an agent can tell this tool apart 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?

The description explicitly says this is experimental, read-only, and not exhaustive, and tells the agent to paginate manually. It also names the alternative fetch_discussion_thread and explains that it starts at page 1 even when a match links to a later reply, which is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs alternative guidance that helps an agent avoid mistakes.

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