audit_steam_store

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether an external WishlistDoc service requires authentication or API keys, or how errors are handled for invalid appids. It only describes the output structure, leaving significant behavioral 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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs the verb, resource, output items, and a brief attribution. There is no fluff, and the most important information comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job of listing the return values (score, grade, dimensions, prescriptions). However, it does not address prerequisites or error behavior, such as what happens if the appid is invalid or whether external service limits apply.

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%: the appid parameter is fully described with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Audit' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Steam game store page health'. It enumerates the output components (score, grade, 6 dimensions, prescriptions), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is naturally differentiated from sibling tools like predict_sales_cone and get_genre_benchmarks by the action and output.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (auditing a Steam store page's health) and explicitly lists what it returns. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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