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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the decision includes reasons, an optional organization API key turns the call into a recorded tamper-evident log entry for due diligence, and the call is free. That opt-in logging side effect is worth flagging given readOnlyHint=true, but it is caller-side and opt-in, so it is not a contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the decision outcome and the pre-transaction framing, then the logging and cost caveats. 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?

Covers purpose, when to call, optional logging behavior, and cost, which is sufficient for a 5-parameter read-only gate with no output schema. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned reasons or what a denial looks like.

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 every parameter is already documented, including min_grade vs min_score and require_anchored. The description only alludes to 'your minimums' and adds no syntax or precedence detail, which is the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 chain (verifies passport, applies minimums, returns allow/deny plus reasons) against a specific resource (Privi Passport). It is clearly distinguishable from passport_verify, which does not apply policy minimums or render a transaction decision.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as a pre-transaction check before dealing with another AI agent, which tells the agent when to call it. It does not name passport_verify as the alternative for raw verification, and gives no when-not guidance.

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