psa_probatfacts_subject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the page contains, that it is a 'full public reference page', and notably that it does not include a price guide. It does not mention output format, pagination, or rate limits, but for a simple public read operation the content-level transparency is strong.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second enumerates page contents, and the third differentiates from a sibling and gives id provenance. The most important information 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 look-up tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: the agent knows what the page contains, what it lacks, and where the id comes from. It could add the expected response format, but the phrase 'reference page' plus content details gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 the schema already fully documents subject_id. The description restates that subject_id comes from a psa-probatfacts-subjects result, which adds provenance context but no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('PSA ProBatFacts player's bat-authentication reference page'), and content scope (PSA's bat-authentication notes and player biography). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling psa-autographfacts-subject, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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 the tool is relevant and explicitly contrasts it with psa-autographfacts-subject by noting the absence of a price guide. It also tells the agent where to obtain the required subject_id (from a psa-probatfacts-subjects result), though it does not mention alternative related tools like psa-probatfacts-gallery.

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