Get review trend over time

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds further transparency by detailing the output structure (monthly and daily data with counts and percentage) and noting that no API key is required ('No key'). No behavioral contradictions are present.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence explains the core function and output, while the second provides a use case and practical instruction. No redundant information is included, and the key points are 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: data granularity, metrics, and a use case. It omits potential details like error handling or rate limits, but the combination of description and annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) makes it sufficiently complete for an 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?

The input schema provides a description for appid, and the tool description reinforces it by stating 'Get the appid from search_games.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by giving a concrete source for the parameter, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: to retrieve review trends over time, providing both monthly and daily breakdowns with positive/negative counts and percentages. It explicitly mentions a use case ('are reviews improving / did an update hurt reception') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_game_reviews by focusing on histogram data rather than raw reviews.

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 context on when to use the tool (to assess review trends) and includes a prerequisite ('Get the appid from search_games'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies a contrast with other review tools.

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