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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real context beyond that: the enumerated exclusions (customer accounts, enquiries, private drafts, payment records) tell the agent the access boundary of a 'public' read, which prevents over-reaching calls.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return content and scope exclusions. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with a complete annotation set and no output schema, the description covers action, input provenance, return shape ('published facts and provenance') and access boundaries. The only omission is any hint of error behavior when an id is unpublished or unknown.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single documented-free parameter. It does so meaningfully by defining the id as an 'exact id returned by search_passports', which tells the agent both the source and that fuzzy/partial matching is not supported; it does not add length or format detail, hence not a 5.

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 and resource ('Read one public AI MAXX passport') and scopes it ('public', 'one'), which cleanly distinguishes it from search_passports. The follow-on sentence specifies what is returned, so an agent knows exactly what class of operation this is.

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 names the sibling that supplies the required input ('an exact id returned by search_passports'), which is an explicit routing instruction, and adds a negative scope boundary. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it (e.g. for drafts or unpubished passports, only that those data are not accessed).

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