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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context — it says nothing about what 'proof decisions' are returned, the result shape, pagination, or caching, so it contributes almost nothing beyond the title.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is appropriate for a lightweight catalogue tool. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 tool with no output schema, a free-form query object, and a large sibling set of related *_catalogue/*_check pairs, one sentence is not enough. An agent still cannot tell what a 'proof decision' entry contains or what query keys are accepted before calling it.

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 single 'query' parameter is an unconstrained map of arbitrary string/number/boolean keys, and neither the schema nor the description names any valid filter keys or their meaning. High nominal schema coverage is misleading here because the schema defines no real semantics, and the description does not compensate by listing filterable fields.

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 ('List') and resource ('Age Pass checks and supported proof decisions'), so the agent knows this is a discovery/catalogue endpoint. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling age_check, which presumably runs a check rather than listing them — the differentiation is left to the agent's inference.

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 word 'List' plus the catalogue naming pattern implies this is the discovery step before invoking age_check, but the description never says when to use it versus age_check or what comes next. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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