psa_ticketfacts_subject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'full public ticket reference page' and that it carries no price guide, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or any other operational traits. For a simple read operation 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, the content and key exclusion are stated in the second sentence, and the parameter provenance is given in the third. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the page is, what it lacks, and where the input id comes from. It does not detail the return format, but for a simple reference-page fetch this is a minor gap given the strong purpose and usage guidance.

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%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter documentation: 'subject_id is the numeric id from a psa-ticketfacts-subjects result.' It adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming the source of the id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 TicketFacts event's ticket reference page.' It then clarifies what that page contains and explicitly distinguishes it from psa-autographfacts-subject by noting the absence of a price guide. This lets an agent identify the tool's exact role among many PSA siblings.

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 names the alternative psa-autographfacts-subject and states the key difference (no price guide), giving useful selection context. It also tells the agent where subject_id comes from (a psa-ticketfacts-subjects result). It does not explicitly cover when to choose this over psa_ticketfacts_gallery or psa_ticketfacts_subjects, but the core routing guidance is present.

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