steam_get_market_pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that entries are curated/original editorial content and 'latest' implies recency ordering, which is useful. It does not cover pagination behavior beyond limit, result freshness, or whether the digest is static, leaving a gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope ('curated market digest') comes before the enumeration of content types. The trailing list of topics is slightly long but still earns its place by clarifying what the entries cover.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and a single optional parameter keeps the calling contract simple. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around recency/scope boundaries.

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?

There is only one optional parameter (limit) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with default and bounds. The description adds nothing about limit, so the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 names a specific resource (a curated market digest of editorial entries on Steam trends, live-ops, and competitor analysis) and its provenance (steam-mcp project). It is clearly not a per-app lookup, distinguishing it from siblings that all take an app identifier. The verb is only implied rather than stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Mentioning that the content targets 'game developers' with trends/live-ops/competitor pieces implies when the tool is useful, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given. An agent must infer that this is for broad market context rather than app-specific data.

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