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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully handled elsewhere. The description adds a small amount of behavior ('from history', i.e., a stored, not live, record), but says nothing about freshness, error behavior for a missing ID, or access scoping across workspaces. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining.

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 sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The example object is arguably redundant given a 100%-covered schema, but it does convey invocation shape cheaply and does not bloat the definition.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, so the bar is low and the description meets it. The only shortfall is that it never mentions the optional workspaceId scoping or what happens when the ID is not found, both of which require opening the schema.

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 100%, so both the required observationId (sourced from list_target_history or list_monitored_services) and the optional workspaceId already carry full semantics in the schema. The description's inline example merely restates the payload shape rather than adding format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read a recorded Passport') plus the lookup key ('by observation ID') and the data source ('from history'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_atlas_entry in terms of when one versus the other returns what kind of record.

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 'recorded ... from history' implies the Passport must already exist from a prior observation, giving implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to search_atlas or other alternatives for locating a Passport when the observation ID is unknown.

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