aggregate_steam_review_corpus

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a lot: refund status neither excludes nor reweights records, results cover only saved data that may be partial/capped, completed corpora are served locally without refresh, interrupted jobs resume under cooldown, and unsupported formats return UNSUPPORTED_CORPUS_VERSION. It still omits auth/permission needs and concurrency behavior, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and return summary are front-loaded, then caveats follow in dense but single-purpose sentences. It is long, but for a 12-parameter aggregation tool with no annotations nearly every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a complex 12-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return contents, data-completeness caveats, refresh semantics, resume behavior and an error code, which is close to sufficient. Auth requirements and the exact distinction from query_steam_review_corpus remain uncovered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal semantics beyond the schema, notably that buckets are UTC and that weeks start Monday.

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?

States a specific verb (Aggregates) and resource (committed schema 2 review chunks) plus the filter dimensions used, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling query_steam_review_corpus, leaving the agent to guess which one 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 offers a useful routing hint ('Completed corpora are read locally without refresh; create a new corpus for updated data') that points toward create_steam_review_corpus, and notes 'Requires metadata'. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs query_steam_review_corpus, and no when-not guidance.

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