microsoftstore_editorial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It states that the data is credential-free public Microsoft Store data read directly from the store's editorial-page API, and it candidly warns that an unknown/invalid id returns a 503 upstream error rather than a clean 404.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and every subsequent sentence contributing useful discovery, error, or auth context. It loses a point for mild redundancy, such as opening with 'Get a Microsoft Store editorial article by id' and then immediately saying 'Returns a Microsoft Store editorial article.'

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 simple one-required-parameter fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains where the id comes from, how the tool differs from discovery endpoints, what error behavior to expect, and that no credentials are needed. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly reinforces what the schema already says about editorial_id and adds no meaningful new semantics for locale or country, such as defaults, optionality behavior, or formatting details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Microsoft Store editorial article by id.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling store tools by explaining that editorial ids are not discoverable and are only found embedded in a product's award.editorial_id field, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent that there is no discovery endpoint and that editorial ids come from specific sibling endpoints like /microsoftstore/search, /microsoftstore/category, /microsoftstore/charts, /microsoftstore/publisher, and /microsoftstore/related. This effectively states when to use this tool and where to obtain the required id.

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