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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain-specific guarantee that the pass is not consumed, which is meaningful beyond the generic annotations, but it says nothing about auth, error behavior, or what a failed validation looks like.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the key non-consuming constraint; nothing is padded. It is arguably over-terse rather than verbose, but every phrase earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and the description never indicates what validation returns (a boolean, a reason, the matched SKU set), nor does it cover the required passId. For a tool whose whole value is its verdict, the result contract is missing.

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 carries the full burden. It explains 'sku' as an optional value checked against allowedSkus, which is real added meaning, but the required 'passId' is left entirely undefined and no format or lookup semantics are given for either parameter.

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+resource ('Valida AccessPass') and adds the scoping qualifier 'vigente (sin consumir)', which implicitly separates it from the sibling temple_consume_pass. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 parenthetical 'sin consumir' implies this is the non-consuming check variant, giving an implied when-to-use against temple_consume_pass, but no alternative is named and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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