psa_autographfacts_subject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by listing what the response contains: authentication notes, biography, and a per-item-type price guide, plus the caveat that item types vary by subject. It does not cover every edge case, but it gives a strong, accurate picture of the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, the second sentence adds valuable return-content detail, and the third sentence explains how to obtain the parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how to call it. It covers the return contents in meaningful detail, notes variability in price guide item types, and specifies the required parameter's source. For a single-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema fully documents subject_id. The description's final sentence repeats the schema's provenance guidance ('from a psa-autographfacts-subjects result') rather than adding new constraints or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 and resource: 'Get a PSA AutographFacts subject's profile and price guide.' It then clarifies scope as 'One autograph subject's full public reference page,' which distinguishes it from the plural list tool psa_autographfacts_subjects and from sibling gallery/category tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 context for when to use the tool: after obtaining a subject_id from a psa-autographfacts-subjects result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular/plural relationship with the subjects tool and the explicit provenance of subject_id are sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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