search_store

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by stating 'No API key required' and clarifying the return behavior ('matching apps with appids'). It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't mention pagination or error cases, the added context goes beyond structured fields.

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 two tight sentences plus a short paragraph. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage context is separated clearly. No filler or redundant phrasing; every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (likely describing the result structure), full parameter documentation in the schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, the downstream tools it feeds, and authentication requirements. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% (both 'term' and 'limit' are described in the schema). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that 'term' is the game name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the full semantic load.

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'), resource ('Steam store'), and outcome ('return matching apps with appids'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is the entry point that produces appids consumed by get_app_details, get_app_reviews, and stats tools, making its role clear.

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 the entry point for most store workflows and specifies when to use it: when you need to turn a game name mentioned by the user into an appid. It also implicitly guides against using it when you already have an appid (go downstream directly) and notes that no API key is required, which is a practical usage constraint.

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