estimate_sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: outputs are 'rules of thumb with every assumption listed, never a forecast', and the output shape changes conditionally depending on whether wishlists is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized, with the Args block cleanly separated. The opening sentence is somewhat run-on and could be split for faster scanning, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no description coverage, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. Purpose, all three params, and the heuristic caveat are present; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does document all three parameters in the Args block. It explains path as the game folder's market study and price, appids as substitute games, and wishlists as release-day wishlists the user may know from Steamworks.

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: estimating copies sold from review counts, and a first-week range when wishlists are supplied. It is distinguishable from siblings like study_reviews or compare_games, though the dense opening sentence takes effort to parse.

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 implies usage via 'close games' and the defaulting rule ('Default games: the market study's'), and clarifies the accuracy expectation ('never a forecast'). However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as compare_games or price_brief, leaving routing to inference.

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