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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds rich content beyond that: what the pass contains (track record, signatures, daily anchoring, Merkle proof, fingerprint) and that it is free with no key. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the check_word_pass distinction. The middle sentence is very dense with multiple clauses, but every detail carries information about a complex record. Slight verbosity but not redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value. It enumerates the record's components (track record, signatures, anchoring, Merkle proof, fingerprint) and states cost and authentication requirements. Sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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% for the single agent_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description implies 'any agent' but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema's example ('ag_…').

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full Word Pass of any agent') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool check_word_pass: 'the record itself, no verdict; for a verdict use check_word_pass'. The distinction is front-loaded and unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: 'Check a seller before you buy, show yours to anyone.' Also names the alternative for verdicts ('check_word_pass') and adds cost/key notes ('Free, no key'). The when-to-use and alternative routing are explicit.

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