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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful conditional detail: the shareable passport URL is only included when the profile is public. This is useful behavioral context not present in the 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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The main content list is front-loaded, and the conditional URL detail is appended without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description enumerates all major return categories (stats, stamps, history, reviews) and a conditional behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no input semantic burden on the description. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output content rather than inputs.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('your lounge passport'), then enumerates its contents: stats, country stamps, visit history, reviews, and shareable URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_visits and get_my_reviews by presenting it as an aggregate overview.

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 implies when to use it: when the agent needs the user's consolidated passport overview rather than individual visit/review/profile data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for aggregate personal data.

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