xbox_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 pagination behavior ('Cursor-paginated'), authentication requirements ('Credential-free public Xbox data'), and the data source ('read directly from the store's own per-category search API'). This gives an agent the key behavioral context needed before invocation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action and scope before mentioning pagination and data source. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, category scoping, pagination, and access requirements. It does not describe result item fields, but the 'one page of Xbox search results' statement plus schema coverage of cursor and filters is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 schema already documents all 15 parameters including cursor semantics and enum values. The description adds only modest context by noting that sort/filter parameters align with /xbox/browse, which helps a bit but does not materially change parameter understanding.

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 and resource: 'Search the Xbox catalog' and clarifies that it returns one page of keyword search results scoped to a category. It also distinguishes itself from xbox_browse by noting it uses the same sort/filter parameters while being the keyword-search entry point.

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 clearly identifies xbox_browse as a related tool whose parameters are shared, implying that xbox_search is the keyword-driven variant and xbox_browse is for category browsing. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or offer a direct 'use xbox_browse instead when...' guideline, leaving a small amount of inference to the agent.

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