Patch notes and press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that patch notes carry dates and can be used to correlate with rating changes, and that press items are third-party articles. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or whether 'all' kind returns both types in a specific order. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding useful detail about the two content types. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear. It could be slightly more concise, but it's efficient and readable.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides moderate context. It explains the two kinds of news and their use case, but doesn't cover return format, pagination, or how 'all' behaves. For a news-fetching tool, an agent might need more detail on output structure, but the description covers the essential purpose and filtering logic.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'since' has a description). The tool description explains the meaning of 'kind' by distinguishing patches and press, which adds value beyond the enum values. However, it doesn't clarify 'appid' or 'limit' semantics beyond what the schema provides. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.

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 Steam news for a game, distinguishing developer announcements (patch notes) from press articles. It names the resource (game news) and the two content types, which helps an agent understand the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_articles, though the distinction between game-specific news and general articles is implied.

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 find patch notes near a rating change or to access press items. It implies the tool is for game-specific news, which differentiates it from search_articles, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is useful but not fully explicit.

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