playstation_search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that the data is credential-free and public, that results are paginated, that next_page appears when more results exist, and that cc controls both region and currency.

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 and information-dense with no filler. Every sentence contributes: the core operation, result content, pagination behavior, localization parameters, and the no-credential requirement are all covered efficiently.

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?

The description covers the main things an agent needs for a simple search call: required term concept, output content, pagination, localization, and that no credentials are needed. It is not missing critical behavioral details, though it could optionally state default behavior for cc and l when omitted.

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 still adds meaning beyond the bare parameter definitions. It explains the relationship between page and next_page, clarifies that cc selects region and price currency, and says l selects text language.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair: searching the PlayStation Store by term, returning search result pages of concepts and products. It is easily distinguished from browsing, category, deal, and product-detail sibling tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 implies when to use it: when a term-based PlayStation Store search is needed. It gives practical usage context through pagination and region/language parameters, but it does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives such as playstation_browse or playstation_product.

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