datasets_steam_news_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data model (one document per appid×gid), the fact that only the latest items per app are kept, what fields `q` searches, and the sort enum with default. This gives the agent useful behavioral context. It doesn't describe the return format or rate limits, but for a search tool the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The information is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and each sentence provides distinct value: dataset scope, filter options, and sort defaults. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema or annotations. The description covers dataset scope, filter semantics, and sort behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It doesn't explain the response shape, but given the search context and schema completeness, the description is reasonably complete.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains `app_id` is for a single game's news, `q` searches title+contents, and adds that `date_desc` is the default sort and means 'newest first'. This is genuinely helpful, lifting the score above 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource 'steam-news dataset'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating the dataset's scope: 'Steam news + announcements for tracked apps (one document per appid × gid; the latest items per app are kept)'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from other Steam or datasets search tools.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: filter by `app_id` for a single game's news or use full-text `q` over title+contents. It also notes the sort options and defaults. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this search is appropriate.

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