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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no account is required, the operation does not issue signatures or alter reputation, and the returned document contains evidence, limitations, and a signed-bundle URL for verification.

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 sentences carry the purpose, output contents, and side-effect caveat with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and each sentence 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?

For a simple single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers authentication needs, side effects, and return contents despite the lack of an output schema. The main missing piece is explicit parameter guidance, which is captured separately.

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%, and the description never explains the publicId parameter. While an agent might infer that publicId identifies the passport to retrieve, the description provides no explicit guidance on its meaning, format, or accepted values, leaving the only parameter underdocumented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current public Trust Passport,' and adds a valuable access condition ('without an account'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling verify_trust_passport, but its read-oriented wording and mention of a signed-bundle URL make the intended action reasonably distinct.

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 phrase 'without an account' and 'This read does not issue signatures or change reputation' imply when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as verify_trust_passport or explain when one would choose this over the sibling tools.

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