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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context beyond them: the paged nature of results and the pagination mechanism (page/next_page), plus a summary of return content. It does not detail auth or rate-limit behavior, but with annotations and an output schema the bar is lower.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the first states what is fetched and what it returns, the second handles pagination and disambiguation. Every clause earns its place.

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 and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose, scope, and routing — all of which it does, including pagination behavior via next_page. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `cc`/`l` are country/language and that `id` is a category UUID, and clarifies `page` drives pagination, but adds little beyond the schema's own field descriptions.

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 (Fetch one page) and resource (PlayStation Store product results) scoped to a category UUID and locale, and clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings like playstation_search and playstation_browse. An agent can identify the tool's output type (prices, platforms, media, facets) without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: playstation_search to find products, playstation_suggest for typeahead, playstation_page for a specific page, playstation_browse for the wider store. This is near-ideal when-to-use guidance with named substitutes.

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