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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool honors the same filters as search, which is useful behavioral context, but does not go much beyond what the annotations and output schema already provide.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage note follows immediately.

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 30-parameter schema with full coverage, required facet, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It could clarify the facet parameter's role slightly more, but the schema carries that detail.

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 all 30 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only notes that filters mirror the search tool's filters, adding little parameter-specific detail beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific operation—terms aggregation counts—over a named dataset, Steam games. It distinguishes itself from the search sibling by returning counts rather than listings, though it refers only to the 'related search tool' without naming datasets_steam_games_search exactly.

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?

Explicitly says to use it alongside the related search tool to inspect filter counts under the same query filters. This gives clear context for use, but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives precisely.

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