microsoftstore_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is credential-free, reads directly from the store's API, and is paginated. It also explains the product_type validation behavior and the auto-resolution trade-off. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are useful for an agent.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then adds necessary details about pagination, product_type constraints, and data source. Each sentence contributes value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (paginated related products). It covers the input constraints, the optional product_type behavior, and the credential-free nature. Missing details like error cases or default page size are partially covered by the schema (max 24). Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaningful nuance: it explains that product_type must match the seed product's media type and that omitting it triggers an extra lightweight lookup, while passing it skips that lookup. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions, providing actionable guidance for parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get products related to a Microsoft Store product' with a seed product ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the related-products scope and pagination. The verb 'get' and resource 'related products' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: explains that product_type must match the seed product's media type, and that omitting it triggers auto-resolution. It also notes credential-free public data, implying no auth setup. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools like microsoftstore_recommended or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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