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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-structured trait: per-record credit billing with a minimum of 2 credits, which materially affects how the agent calls the tool and is not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single, densely packed sentence that front-loads the purpose and ends with the cost constraint. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical catalog detail is somewhat list-like.

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 28-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials: scope, record granularity, and cost. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note pagination limits that the schema already holds.

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 itself documents all 28 parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond that by linking page_size to cost ('1 credit per record ... keep page_size to what you need'), adding decision-relevant meaning the schema does not convey.

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 ('Search the PlayStation Store games dataset') and defines the exact granularity of a result ('one row per SKU — game, edition or add-on'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling _item and _facets tools. An agent knows precisely what this returns.

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?

Provides practical usage guidance via the credit cost ('costs 1 credit per record returned'), telling the agent to keep page_size minimal. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this vs datasets_playstation_games_facets or _item, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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