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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new pass, requires a signature from the account, and that conflicting credentials are refused. It also warns that arguments and credential-bearing results may persist in client transcripts. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage and security guidance. Every sentence adds information, though the security warning is somewhat long. It is appropriately sized for a tool with security implications.

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 tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, the auth mechanism, the fallback, and the privacy risk. It does not explain the return value or the exact format of the signature, but the essential context for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 only 33% (timestamp has a description; address and signature do not). The description explains the signature's role and the pass argument's fallback behavior, but it does not add meaning for 'address' beyond the schema. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves address and signature semantics to inference.

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 states a specific action ('recover a pass') for a specific resource ('an account that already holds a membership'), and distinguishes it from related tools like mint_invoice and claim_invoice by focusing on recovery via signature. It is clear but does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: configure Authorization: Bearer <pass> in the MCP client and omit the pass argument when headers are supported, with the pass argument as a fallback. It also warns about credential persistence. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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