PSN taste profile

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that this is a one-shot, consolidated digest covering multiple dimensions of the account's gaming history. It does not detail potential rate limits or freshness caveats, but the read-only nature is already covered by annotations and the description does not contradict them.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then giving a direct usage directive. Every phrase contributes either to scope, content, or routing.

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 the output schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and clear parameter schema, the description covers account scope, content scope, and intended usage. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call this tool and understand what it will receive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely reinforces 'top games by hours' for the top parameter and 'unplayed purchases' for include_backlog, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'One-shot digest of the account's gaming taste' and lists concrete content areas like totals, playtime habits, top games, franchises, and platinums. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as psn_profile, psn_owned_games, and psn_library by framing it as a consolidated taste summary rather than a single-purpose lookup.

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 closing instruction, 'Start here for any recommendation request,' gives explicit routing guidance for when to use this tool. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or name alternative siblings, but the primary usage context is clear and actionable.

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