Get review trend over time

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these: rollup_type is chosen server-side, long-term history is capped at 24 entries, per-day data at 30 days, and each entry contains positive/negative counts and positive %. It also mentions 'No API key required', which is not in the annotations.

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 a single paragraph but every sentence earns its place: the core action, the output structure, limits, use case, alternative, and attribution. It is dense without being rambling, front-loads the verb and resource, and remains 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 a single parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations for read-only safety, the description sufficiently covers all relevant operational details: data granularity, caps, positive percentage, and the differentiator from get_game_reviews. It is complete for an agent to make an informed invocation decision.

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 description for the only parameter (appid) is complete and even includes the instruction to get it from search_games, so the description adds no new parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule for schema coverage >80%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves review trends over time by appid, specifying two distinct data components (long-term history and per-day breakdown) with counts and positive percentages. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_game_reviews, making the purpose 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 explicitly provides use-case guidance ('Good for are reviews improving / did an update hurt reception') and names the alternative (get_game_reviews) for a different need. It also instructs the user to obtain the appid from search_games, covering all prerequisites for correct invocation.

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