datasets_steam_playercounts_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data granularity (one document per appid × day), the default sort (date_desc), and the pagination constraint (page * page_size <= 10000). However, it doesn't disclose what happens with no parameters, whether results are capped, or what the response shape looks like. The pagination constraint is mentioned but the page_size max of 100 is only in the schema.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the resource and granularity, the second gives the two primary usage patterns, and the third explains the sort enum. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: what the dataset contains, how to query by game vs. by date, and what sort options exist. The pagination constraint is mentioned. It could be more complete by describing the response format, but for a search tool with this level of schema documentation, it's largely sufficient.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining how to combine app_id with sort for a history query and how date gives a snapshot, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. However, it doesn't add much about page/page_size semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool searches the steam-playercounts dataset, specifies the data structure (daily concurrent-player time series, one document per appid × day), and provides concrete usage patterns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like steam_players, steam_charts_concurrent, and datasets_steam_games_search by naming the specific dataset and its granularity.

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 explicit usage patterns: pair app_id with sort=date_desc for a game's history, or pass date for a day's snapshot. It also explains the sort enum values and their meanings, which is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs to select the right parameters. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the dataset-specific naming and clear patterns make the usage unambiguous.

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