get_app_details

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses a public API without authentication, and includes a return format outline. While it doesn't detail error cases or rate limits, the core behavior is well communicated.

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 concise with two introductory sentences and a return format block. Every part adds value, and the most critical information (purpose, API info) is front-loaded. No superfluous content.

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's simplicity, the description covers purpose, API usage, and return format. While it doesn't explain all possible output fields, the context signals indicate an output schema exists (though not provided). Sibling tools are clearly different, so completeness is sufficient.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves, though it does describe the return format. Baseline of 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 clearly states it gets detailed store info for a Steam app, using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'app details'. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the public Steam store API, contrasting with sibling tools like get_friend_list or search_store.

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 notes that no API key is required, which helps gauge accessibility, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_store or get_owned_games. Guidance on prerequisites or exclusion scenarios is absent.

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