datasets_steam_prices_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about the data shape ('one document per appid × day; integer cents') and the default sort ('date_desc (default)'). It also explains the intended query patterns. However, it doesn't disclose response format, rate limits, or any edge-case behavior, so it's not a 5.

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 three tightly packed sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second gives concrete usage patterns, and the third enumerates sort options. No filler or repetition; it earns every word.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully prepares an agent to use the tool. It explains the dataset structure, provides two common query recipes, and lists all sort options. The pagination constraints are already in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. This is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema covers all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by showing how to combine app_id with sort=date_desc for a price history and how to use date for a snapshot, enriching the schema's plain parameter definitions.

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 'Search the steam-prices dataset' and explains it 'Searches the daily price time series for priced games (one document per appid × day; integer cents).' This specifies the exact resource and data granularity, distinguishing it from sibling steam tools like datasets_steam_playercounts_search or datasets_steam_games_search.

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 explicit usage patterns: 'Pair app_id with sort=date_desc for a game's price history, or pass date for one day's snapshot.' This gives clear context for when to use different parameter combinations, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. That stops it from scoring a 5.

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