playstation_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a credential-free public data operation, that results are paginated with a next_page signal, that cc selects region and currency, and that l affects the language of text. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention rate limits or exact return shape, but for a read-only search tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by pagination, then locale/currency, then the credential-free note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call contract: what results contain, how pagination works, how region and language are selected, and that no credentials are needed. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but with no output schema that is a minor gap; the description is complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of cc ('selects the store region (and price currency)') and l ('accepts a language code or locale such as en or en-US, with the locale's primary language used for text'), and by explaining the pagination contract ('Pass page to advance; next_page is set when more results exist'). This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('the PlayStation Store'), and the result type ('a page of PlayStation Store search results (concepts and products)'). It also names the store region and language behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like playstation_browse, playstation_category, playstation_product, and playstation_suggest. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when searching the PlayStation Store by term, with pagination and region/language selection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use playstation_browse for browsing without a search term'), but the sibling list includes several PlayStation tools and the description's focus on search-by-term makes the usage context clear. A small gap: no explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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