get_steam_review_corpus_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines the running/waiting states, explains next_retry_at as a UTC ISO timestamp, warns that polling cannot bypass rate-limit cooldown, and cautions that total_reviews_expected is not proof of completeness. It also documents resume behavior and error outcomes (UNSUPPORTED_CORPUS_VERSION, not_found).

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?

Dense but tight: every sentence conveys a distinct behavioral fact, and the primary return scope leads the description. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description fills the gap by describing returned fields (progress, chunks, stop reason, errors) and status semantics. An agent has enough to interpret results and poll correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the corpus_id parameter is already documented as an opaque identifier. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that expired or missing IDs return not_found, clarifying failure semantics.

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+resource: it returns saved review corpus progress, chunks, stop reason and errors. The name and wording make it clearly the status/progress reader for review corpora, distinguishable from query/aggregate/create siblings.

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?

Gives clear operational context: polling does not bypass cooldown, it resumes interrupted schema 2 jobs, and completed corpora stay local and are not refreshed. This tells the agent when a call is useful versus futile, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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