Rating over time

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses output granularity, time range, full-history coverage, and relative cost, which is substantial. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or exact response structure, but for a simple read-only aggregation tool this is reasonable.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second explains why it is the right choice. No filler or repeated schema information.

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?

With one simple integer parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough about the returned data and the tool's advantages to guide correct use. It omits explicit appid guidance and response encoding details, but those are minor for this tool.

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 0% and the description never mentions appid or explains how to supply it. The only connection is 'for a game', which weakly implies the appid parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 (review timeline for a game) and the exact data returned (monthly positive/negative counts, daily last-30-days). It also distinguishes itself from get_reviews, so an agent can tell which tool to pick.

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?

It explicitly says this is the way to find when a rating moved and contrasts itself with get_reviews by noting it is cheap and covers all history. It does not fully spell out the opposite case ('use get_reviews when you need individual review content'), but the comparison gives clear context.

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