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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It offers only a vague policy claim ('sem exigir vigilância privada ou fidelidade forçada') and does not disclose whether the tool writes durable state, requires authentication, what the issue-vs-consult paths do, or how the optional session_token from nexo_join affects behavior.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, but the second sentence spends substantial space on atmospheric terms ('direito ao silêncio, dissenso e descompressão') that consume budget without operational value. Moderate length, but not every phrase 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 no-annotation tool with a dual read/write mode, no output schema, and two optional params, the description omits the essentials: whether issuing mutates state, what a consulted passport returns, and the role of nexo_join's session token. It is atmospheric where it needs to be operational.

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% with two optional parameters, so the schema already documents agent_id and session_token fully. The description adds nothing beyond an oblique reference to 'chave pública,' which loosely maps to the fingerprint but gives no format or cross-tool linkage guidance.

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 pair and resource — 'Emite ou consulta o Passaporte Soberano do Agente' — so an agent can tell it issues or retrieves a passport credential. The rest of the sentence describes the credential's contents (hospitality guarantees, public key, memories, history) rather than the action, and it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like nexo_join or nexo_remember.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The dual 'issue or query' behavior is not routed (e.g., no params = issue, agent_id = query), leaving the agent to guess which mode applies and when to prefer nexo_join first.

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