playstation_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well: states it is credential-free public data, describes the returned shelves and collection links, and explains how cc and l affect region/currency and language. It omits potential caveats like pagination of shelves or behavior for unknown aliases, but for a read-only page fetcher the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core action and mostly avoids waste. There is minor redundancy ('Get a PlayStation Store merchandising page by alias' vs. 'Reads any PlayStation Store merchandising page by alias'), but the rest earns its place with return-value details, alias examples, and parameter behavior.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the page returns, what the collection links contain, how to use them downstream, parameter semantics, and a credential-free note. It could add error/unknown-alias behavior or shelf pagination, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it lists known alias values, clarifies that cc selects region and currency, and explains that l accepts a language code or locale with the primary language used for text. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Language code' and 'Store country code' entries.

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 clear verb+resource pair: 'Get a PlayStation Store merchandising page by alias,' then specifies the return value ('shelves (sections) plus the curated collection links'). It references /playstation/category as the downstream consumer of the category_id, which helps disambiguate from that sibling, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from playstation_browse, playstation_deals, or playstation_latest, despite listing 'deals' and 'latest' as aliases.

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 concrete usage context: known aliases, cc/l behavior, and an explicit pointer to /playstation/category when a full paginated title grid is needed. It does not provide exclusions or directly compare against the playstation_* siblings, but the category routing is a clear when-to-use alternative.

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