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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/open-world profile is covered. The description adds useful structural context (each result is a set with the query's matching cards/items nested inside, mirroring PSA's site search box) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or empty-result behavior. With annotations plus an output schema, this modest added context merits a 3.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the downstream workflow. No wasted words and no ambiguity about the primary action.

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 re-explained, and the description correctly focuses on the workflow handoff to psa_price_guide_set. It is essentially complete for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around empty-result handling.

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 Query, Page and PageSize are already documented. The description echoes the query examples (player/subject or set name) but adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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') plus the scope of the query (player/subject or set name). It names the sibling tool psa_price_guide_set and the relationship to it, so an agent can distinguish this entry-point search from the set-fetch tool.

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?

Gives clear follow-on guidance: use a result's category_path, set_path and set_id as input to psa_price_guide_set to get the full price table. It positions this as the search entry point, though it does not explicitly contrast with the browse sibling psa_price_guide_categories for when a free-text search is preferable.

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