xbox_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the data is 'credential-free public Xbox data' and is 'read directly from the store's own batch product-detail API,' which conveys read-only, no-auth access. It also lists the media and subscription fields that will be returned. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent useful context about the operation's nature and source.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second lists return fields and source. Every word is functional and front-loaded. There is no fluff, repetition, or verbose explainer, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 by-id lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, that it requires no credentials, and its data source. It doesn't discuss error cases or default locale behavior, but the schema covers the parameters and the tool is low complexity. The absence of explicit rate-limit or error warnings is a minor gap given the 'public read' nature already disclosed.

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% – both product_id and locale have descriptive comments. The description reinforces that product_id is the single product identifier but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain locale behavior or defaults, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Get Xbox catalog details') and immediately scopes it to a single product id. It enumerates the exact fields returned (title, publisher, price, subscriptions, etc.), making it unambiguous what the tool does. The phrase 'for a single product' distinguishes it from broader catalog/browse tools like xbox_browse.

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 usage: you need a product_id to fetch details, and it's for one product. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., xbox_browse) or mention any exclusions. It provides the necessary context but no when-not guidance, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than explicit routing.

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