psa_autographfacts_subjects

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns every subject in a category with a numeric subject_id, implying a read-only list. However, it doesn't mention any pagination, rate limits, or ordering. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive; the absence of behavioral details beyond the basic output is a minor gap.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides the output details and a forward reference to the next tool. It is front-loaded and 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?

For a low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the return value (each subject with subject_id) and the chaining workflow. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination, but for a simple listing tool this is a minor omission.

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% and the only parameter category_id is well-documented in the schema as 'Category id, from psa-autographfacts-categories'. The description adds minimal semantic value, merely confirming the parameter's role ('in a category'). Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'PSA AutographFacts subjects in a category'. It specifies the scope (one category) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like psa_autographfacts_categories (listing categories) and psa_autographfacts_subject (single subject details). The mention of providing subject_id for the next step reinforces its unique role.

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 implies the workflow: use this to get a list of subjects for a category, then pass the subject_id to psa-autographfacts-subject for full profiles. This provides clear when-to-use guidance for the main use case. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for categories or single subject), but the sibling naming and the workflow hint are adequate.

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