steam_get_update_impact

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds a high-level behavioral trait (comparing reviews around updates) but does not disclose return formats, pagination, or other processing details. It adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes an illustrative example. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description could hint at the return format or caveats. It does not mention response_format or what the output looks like, though the schema provides defaults. The high-level purpose is clear, but the description leaves some context unspecified.

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 already includes descriptions for most parameters (days, appid, language, window_days, purchase_type), giving the agent adequate semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the load. Coverage is sufficient, warranting a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('how a game's reviews moved around each recent update'), and adds an illustrative example ('did the last patch hurt it?') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_get_app_reviews or steam_analyze_app_reviews. The focus on updates makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 the use case (analyzing review changes around updates) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or conditions for use, so guidance is only implicit.

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