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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: 'Credential-free public PlayStation Store data' and the pagination mechanics (next_page presence signals more results). It does not add auth/rate-limit warnings, but those are less relevant for a credential-free public read.

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 what the tool returns, then pagination, then parameter semantics, then the sibling redirect. Every sentence adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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-value enumeration is unnecessary, and the description fills the remaining gaps: return scope, pagination, region/currency, language/locale handling, and credential-free access. 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 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: cc 'selects the store region (and price currency)' and l accepts a 'locale such as en or en-US, with the locale's primary language used for text'. The page/page_size pagination intent is also clarified. This exceeds what the one-line schema descriptions 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns a page of PlayStation Store search results') and scopes the return to concepts and products with price/platforms/classification/media. It also names a sibling (playstation_deals) as a distinct case, so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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 gives an explicit alternative for one scenario ('Use playstation_deals to get PlayStation Store deals shelves') and explains the pagination continuation ('Pass page to advance; next_page is set when more results exist'). However, it does not clarify when to prefer it over other siblings like playstation_browse, playstation_category, or playstation_suggest.

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