psa_autographfacts_gallery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the gallery holds 'real, captioned examples of authenticated signed items... used as authentication reference material,' and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose pagination, result size, or what happens with an invalid subject_id, which matters for a gallery that could contain many images.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, content explanation, and parameter provenance. The second sentence is somewhat lengthy but genuinely valuable because 'exemplar image gallery' is a niche concept that benefits from elaboration. The key verb+resource is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the kinds of items included, and how to obtain the required id via a prior tool call. Minor gaps remain around return structure and pagination, but the retrieval nature of this tool makes those less critical than for a mutation or data-write operation.

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%: subject_id is already described as a 'Numeric subject id, from a psa-autographfacts-subjects result.' The description's closing sentence repeats this same provenance information, reinforcing it but adding little beyond the schema. For a single simple parameter, this meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get a PSA AutographFacts subject's exemplar image gallery.' It then defines the gallery's content (real, captioned examples of authenticated signed items) so the agent knows exactly what it returns. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like psa_autographfacts_subject (profile info), psa_autographfacts_subjects (search results), and psa_ticketfacts_gallery (a different collectible category).

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 gives clear sequencing context by stating that subject_id comes 'from a psa-autographfacts-subjects result,' telling the agent to run the subjects search first. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus psa_autographfacts_subject or the categories tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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