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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safe-read is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it breaks down what owner.notices contains (joining agents, tokens spending from a new network, lockdowns), warns about balance expiry, and prescribes the send_feedback/prompt_id flow — context the annotations do not supply.

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?

Content is front-loaded onto the passport/balance payload, but the single dense paragraph with nested parentheticals is longer and more meandering than needed. Most sentences carry information, yet structure could be tighter for the volume delivered.

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, the description correctly bears the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly including edge cases (masked email_hint, passport_count, notices categories). It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, though it does not explain the return of the optional question during selection.

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?

A single optional passport_token parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already explains the pattern and the header-alternative semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 enumerates exactly what is returned — passport, credential strength, balance, spend limit, notices, pending reviews, and an optional question — which makes the identity/status purpose concrete. It never explicitly says 'use instead of X', but the enumerated payload distinguishes it from siblings like list_passports or top_up_status.

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?

Usage context is implied through follow-up actions ('tell your human in time', 'answer it once with send_feedback', 'you may also call leave_owner'), which hints at when the data matters. However there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, so guidance remains indirect.

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