psa_ticketfacts_gallery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully explains the return content (full exemplar gallery of real, captioned tickets used as authentication reference), but it does not disclose pagination, response format, or any access expectations. For a simple read-only gallery retrieval, this is adequate but not rich.

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, with the action front-loaded and the supporting detail kept tight. The middle clause 'One event's full exemplar image gallery' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but it does not waste space and helps define the scope.

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 one-parameter tool, the description names the parameter's provenance, explains what the returned gallery contains, and defines its purpose. It could mention the expected output shape since there is no output schema, but the simple scope makes the definition sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's own guidance that subject_id is a numeric id from psa-ticketfacts-subjects, adding no new meaning or format detail beyond what the parameter description already provides.

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 opening sentence names a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('PSA TicketFacts event's exemplar image gallery'), and the second sentence clarifies the resource's nature (real, captioned reference images). The TicketFacts qualifier plus 'gallery' distinguishes it from sibling subject/subjects tools and other PSA gallery tools, even without an explicit contrast.

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 states that subject_id must come from a psa-ticketfacts-subjects result, giving an explicit prerequisite and implied workflow (run subjects first, then gallery). It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives like psa_ticketfacts_subject, but for a single-param lookup the context is clear enough.

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