microsoftstore_spotlight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool is credential-free, reads directly from Microsoft Store's promotion-products API, and is read-only in nature (no mutation implied). It also discloses the rejection behavior for invalid media types, which is important for error handling.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the action and then providing precise details on output, exclusions, constraints, and data source. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (the hero/spotlight shelf) and its scope (home or department). It also covers the data source and authentication requirements, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (locale, country, media_type), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only home, apps, and games have a spotlight and that other media types are rejected, which goes beyond the schema's enum listing and informs the agent about valid parameter choices.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Microsoft Store home page or department spotlight'), and precisely defines the output as the curated hero/spotlight shelf, distinguishing it from ranked charts and the 'Special events' shelf. It also specifies the exact media types that are valid, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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: it explains that only home, apps, and games have a spotlight and that any other media_type is rejected, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It also contrasts with ranked charts and the 'Special events' shelf, implicitly steering away from those, but it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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