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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses matching semantics (word-prefix matching, exact/leading matches rank first), that an empty list is a valid no-match, and partial-failure behavior where unavailable categories are named. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 one dense but well-structured paragraph, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by scope exclusion, matching rules, empty-result behavior, category constraint, and partial-failure behavior. Every sentence carries 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 a read-only, open-world search tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description covers everything else an agent needs: query formulation, sibling routing, valid category sourcing, result shape, no-match semantics, and degradation behavior.

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%, so Page and PageSize are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for Query (word-prefix matching rules) and CategoryPath (must come from psa_price_guide_categories), but does not elaborate on pagination parameters.

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 (finds), resource (PSA Price Guide sets), scope (by set name, optionally within one category), and exact return fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from psa_price_guide_search by saying it does not search card or player names.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: choose psa_price_guide_search for a player or card query, and psa_price_guide_categories supplies valid category_path values. The matching condition ('Every query word must start a word of the set name') further tells the agent how to phrase queries.

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