Get review trend over time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating no side effects. The description adds concrete behavioral constraints: rollup_type is server-chosen, capped at 24 long-term entries and 30 recent days, and includes positive/negative counts and percentage. It also notes that no key is required, which is beyond annotation scope.

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 front-loaded with the core action and provides detailed yet structured information about the two response parts, usage context, and alternatives. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'capped at most recent' for both components) prevents a perfect score.

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?

With a single parameter, existing output schema, and comprehensive descriptions of the two result components (including caps and rollup behavior), the description leaves no significant gaps. It covers the tool's purpose, limitations, usage guidelines, and alternative tools, making it fully informative for an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter appid, with its description already stating it's a Steam appid and telling users to get it from search_games. The description echoes this instruction but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline 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 trending over time, specifying two components (long-term history with rollup and recent per-day breakdown) and the statistics (positive/negative counts and percentage). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_game_reviews, which provides a current summary and example text instead of a trend.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for answering questions like 'are reviews improving' and 'did an update hurt reception'. It directly advises using get_game_reviews for a current summary instead of a trend, and directs users to get the appid from search_games. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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