microsoftstore_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it explicitly discloses that the endpoint is credential-free, reads public Microsoft Store data, and hits the store's own web API – signaling read-only behavior. It also describes pagination behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a public search endpoint the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds information (result shape, filtering, pagination, access model). The only minor weakness is the reference to an external markdown doc for category lists, which may not be available to the agent.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required keyword, department/filter semantics, pagination, and credential-free access. It doesn't describe the full response envelope or defaults for locale/country, but the returned per-item fields and cursor mechanism are enough to drive correct calls.

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 adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by explaining that media_type chooses the department, that category depends on media_type, and that cursor should be taken from the previous response's next_cursor. These relationships are not fully evident from individual property descriptions alone.

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 opening sentence states the action (search) and resource (Microsoft Store) directly, and the second sentence specifies the result type ('a page of search results') and the content fields returned. It doesn't explicitly name sibling search tools like microsoftstore_suggest or xbox_search, but the keyword-search focus distinguishes it from the surrounding Microsoft Store browse/detail tools.

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 gives operational context: this is where to search the store by keyword, and it explains how to narrow within a department (media_type) and filter further (category), plus how to paginate with next_cursor. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., microsoftstore_suggest for autocomplete, microsoftstore_charts for rankings), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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