search_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the search scope but omits critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or the structure of returned results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for Steam apps by name') and adds essential scope clarification ('full Steam catalog'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and scope but lacks behavioral transparency and result format details. For a search tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but leaves agents guessing about authentication, limits, and output structure.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the query matches against app names, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Search for Steam apps by name') and the resource ('Steam apps'), with explicit scope ('full Steam catalog'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_game_details or get_owned_games by focusing on catalog-wide name-based search.

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 implies usage context through 'searches the full Steam catalog', suggesting this is for broad discovery rather than user-specific data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_game_details for specific apps or get_owned_games for user's library.

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