Check Steam update opportunity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the title without explaining what 'worth covering' means, what data is analyzed, or the nature of the result. No side effects, prerequisites, or decision process are mentioned.

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 sentence with no wasted words, earning a high conciseness score. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary details, though structure itself is clean and front-loaded with the main verb.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what inputs are expected, what the output looks like, or how the tool determines worthiness. Users would be left guessing how to invoke it correctly.

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 has two parameters (query, period) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. 'query' is ambiguous (likely a game name but not stated), and 'period' is an enum but its effect on the check is unexplained. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 checks whether a Steam update, patch, DLC, comeback, or event is worth covering on YouTube. This specific scope differentiates it from general-purpose tools like check_game_for_youtube, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when a user has a specific Steam update or event in mind and wants to assess its YouTube potential. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools like find_youtube_gaming_opportunities.

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