microsoftstore_reviews_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Credential-free public Microsoft Store data, read directly from the store's own review-summary API,' which communicates the authentication requirement and read-only nature. It does not address rate limits or error behavior, but covers the most crucial operational traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds meaningful information. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the return contents, covering what an agent needs to know about the response. It could mention optional parameter behavior or limitations, but the schema already documents the parameters and the description covers the essential output contract.

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 product_id, locale, and country are already adequately documented by the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but adding no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Microsoft Store product's aggregate rating summary.' It enumerates the exact returned data (average rating, total review count, star distribution, most critical/favorable written reviews), which clearly distinguishes it from related tools like microsoftstore_product or microsoftstore_reviews.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for aggregate rating summaries and highlights that the written reviews are 'upstream-selected,' implying it is not a full-reviews tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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