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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'public passport', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm absence of side effects, mention authentication requirements, or describe error behavior. For a simple getter this is minimal but not complete.

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 description is a single concise phrase, front-loaded with the core concept 'public passport'. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. It is not a full sentence but is acceptable for a short definition. A 4 because it is efficient, though slightly cryptic due to the noun-phrase structure.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thin but does not fully cover what an agent needs. It does not explain the meaning of keyId, what 'karma' entails, or how the passport differs from related tools. The description is barely adequate for a simple getter, but missing context on parameter semantics and output.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (keyId) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds nothing about what keyId means, its format, or how to obtain it. The description mentions 'key' but does not explain the parameter. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with only the parameter name.

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 identifies the resource (passport of a key) and the contents (proven domains, claimed listings, karma), which clearly conveys what the tool returns. It is not phrased as a verb phrase ('Retrieves...'), but the meaning is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like open_passport or passport_karma by naming the full passport object. A 4 because it lacks an explicit action verb, but the purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_passport or passport_karma. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this is the preferred choice. With many sibling tools in the same domain, the agent gets no routing help.

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