Search collected press

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

There are no annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data source and that the search is over collected press articles, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, how results are ordered, whether results are paginated, or what 'collected from outlet feeds' means in terms of recency or coverage. The phrase 'right now' hints at freshness but does not define it.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, and the second sentence adds a scope distinction that helps differentiate this tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, so the description needs to do substantial explanatory work to be complete. It explains the search domain but never mentions what the agent will receive (the result shape), how to control result volume (limit), or how to anchor the recency of the search (since_days). As a result, an agent has to guess or rely on external knowledge to call the tool optimally.

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 33% (only since_days has a description), so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description conveys that the search is full-text and about games or topics, which gives some semantic meaning to the query parameter, but it says nothing about limit or since_days and does not help an agent decide how to set them.

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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search over gaming press articles collected from outlet feeds. It also gives the important scope cue that it covers the industry generally rather than Steam-specific data. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, and the phrase 'Steam tools' only vaguely differentiates it from siblings like get_game_news or search_games.

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 gives clear context for when this is useful—the industry press generally as opposed to Steam tools—and explains that it answers what is being written about a game or topic right now. However, it never names sibling tools or explicitly states when not to use this tool (e.g., when you need Steam review timelines, use get_review_timeline), so it remains more implied than explicit.

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