datasets_steam_news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: it only covers tracked apps, deduplicates to latest items per app, and provides sort semantics. This goes beyond what the schema shows. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but 'Search' implies it. It also doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but those are unlikely for a dataset search. Overall, it discloses the data model and default behavior sufficiently.

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, front-loading the purpose and then providing filter/sort guidance. It is one sentence with no fluff. Every part adds value: the dataset scope, the filters, and the sort. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 complexity (5 params, all documented) and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It explains the dataset structure (tracked apps, latest items) and how to filter. It does not clarify whether `app_id` and `q` can be combined, which could be ambiguous, but this is a minor gap. The pagination parameters are in the schema, so they don't need description. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics: it explains `app_id` is for a single game's news (beyond 'Exact Steam app id filter'), and clarifies `q` searches title+contents. It also defines the sort enum with default. This adds meaning beyond the schema, particularly for `app_id` and `sort`. It doesn't explain page/page_size, but those are self-explanatory in the schema. Thus a 4 is warranted.

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 searches the steam-news dataset, which is a specific resource. It uses a specific verb 'Search' and describes the resource (Steam news + announcements). It distinguishes itself from other dataset search tools by naming the dataset and its scope (tracked apps, one document per appid × gid). This is unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use each filter: use `app_id` for a single game's news, or `q` for full-text search. It also explains the sort enum with default. However, it does not mention alternatives like other dataset search tools (e.g., datasets_steam_games_search) or when not to use this tool. The usage guidance for parameters is clear, but there is no explicit exclusion or comparison to siblings.

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