study_market

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: only app ids are persisted, the texts stay in a local cache, and drafts are checked against them. This clarifies the side effects of a non-read-only tool (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and is consistent with both hints.

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-loads the purpose, then the storage semantics, then a clearly labelled Args block. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, parameters, side effects and the follow-up call. It is complete for the call itself, though it never situates the study against sibling research tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that path is the folder holding steamworks.yaml, tags are Steam tag names used instead of store.tags (most specific first), and games has a 3-15 range with default 10. Only the tags ordering constraint goes slightly beyond, but overall the params are well documented.

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 and resource ('Start a market study') plus the exact selection criteria (most specific tags, Popular New Releases/Top Sellers, last 3 years) and what it returns (short descriptions and About texts). An agent can distinguish it from study_reviews, compare_games and store_lookup without opening any schema.

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 context ('before writing the store text') and an explicit follow-up step ('Then call save_market_study'), plus a parameter alternative ('instead of store.tags'). It stops short of naming or excluding specific sibling tools, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not map.

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