get_steam_review_corpus_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It says it 'returns' data (implying a read) but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, what happens if corpus_id is unknown, whether progress is live or cached, or how failures are surfaced. Only a minimal read implication is conveyed.

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?

One efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words. It could be marginally more structured by noting the return shape, but it is appropriately sized for a simple status endpoint.

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 one parameter at full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is returned but not why or when, nor how the manifest/progress should be interpreted. An agent can call it correctly but lacks context about lifecycle or error states.

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% and the sole parameter corpus_id is fully documented as an opaque identifier from review corpus tools. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (persisted manifest and progress summary) for a server-side Steam review fetch, which is clearer than a tautology and distinguishes it partially from siblings through the 'status' concept. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_steam_forum_topic_corpus_status or explain what 'manifest and progress summary' contains, leaving a small gap versus a model that names its sibling.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_steam_review_corpus or query/aggregate alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and description that this checks fetch progress after corpus creation, but no conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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