get_game_details

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get store details') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the game is not found.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and accepted parameters. No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the fields returned (description, genres, tags, release date, Metacritic score, price), providing completeness for a simple lookup tool. It does not mention error behavior or handling multiple matches, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value for the 'name' parameter by specifying 'case-insensitive substring match against your library', which is not in the schema. For 'appid', no extra information is added beyond schema, but overall it augments parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets store details for a game, listing specific fields (description, genres, tags, release date, Metacritic score, price) and notes it accepts game name or appid. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_library or search_library.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving store details of a specific game but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings or any exclusions. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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