Buscar juego por nombre

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds that the tool returns matches with appid, which is useful, but does not disclose search behavior (e.g., fuzzy vs exact matching, result ordering, or pagination). This is acceptable given the annotation coverage and simple nature but not rich 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 compact and effective: one sentence states what the tool does, and the second gives the primary use case. No filler or redundant repetition of the input schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity read-only search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the search domain, the input concept, and the output concept (appid matches). It could add a note about exact-match behavior or result format, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it is present.

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 both parameters (term and limit) are already documented. The description references 'término' and 'appid' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Busca juegos en Steam por término') and the output ('devuelve coincidencias con su appid'), distinguishing it from the sibling tools, which are all get_* operations with different purposes. The mention of 'Steam' and 'appid' makes the resource and use case unambiguous.

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 includes a practical usage cue: 'Útil para obtener el appid a partir del nombre', which tells the agent when to use this tool (when you have a game name and need its appid). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but there are no obvious sibling search tools that compete directly.

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