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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it mirrors PSA's own site search box, and it discloses the result shape (a set containing the query's matching cards), which helps the agent interpret output without opening anything else.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence earns its place by explaining both the result structure and the follow-up call.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description still adds result-shape and routing detail. It is complete for correct invocation, with only the pagination parameters left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does clarify Query ('a player/subject name or set name'), but Page and PageSize are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, relying on the agent's pagination assumptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches PSA Price Guide by free text') and scopes the input accepted (player/subject name or set name). It distinguishes itself from the sibling psa_price_guide_set by describing what it returns (matching sets with cards inside) versus the set tool's full price table.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search here, then feed category_path/set_path/set_id into psa_price_guide_set to get the full price table. This is a clear when-to-use-next instruction, though it does not address when to prefer the other sibling psa_price_guide_categories or when free-text search is the wrong entry point.

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