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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and retry profile is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely useful 'append-only' trait, which tells the agent records are immutable and new entries accumulate. It omits that non-idempotency means repeat calls create duplicate passports, and says nothing about permissions, so it is solid but not rich.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage condition. 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?

For a non-idempotent write with no output schema and six parameters, the description covers purpose and timing but leaves the agent guessing about what is returned (e.g., a passport identifier needed by verify_economic_passport), whether prior trust_gate_id linkage is expected, and whether repeat calls are safe. Adequate at the minimum-viable level, not more.

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 only 17%, with five of six parameters carrying no schema prose, so the description must compensate. It only says 'recording the parties and economic context,' which loosely gestures at principal_id/agent_id/counterparty_agent_id and amount/currency but never clarifies their meaning, format, or relationship. This is a clear gap against a low-coverage schema.

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: 'Create an append-only Economic Passport recording the parties and economic context of one agent-to-agent transaction.' That is precise and distinguishable from the sibling verify_economic_passport by the create/verify contrast. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives clear timing context: 'Use after a transaction is agreed or initiated so its eventual outcome can become evidence.' That tells the agent when in the transaction lifecycle to call it and hints at the downstream handoff to record_outcome. No explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions are named, so it is a 4, not a 5.

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