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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the outcome history is immutable, but says nothing about what verification entails, how failure/invalid passports are reported, or any auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the triggering condition. No filler, though it is brief enough that a little more operational detail would still fit comfortably.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: it says what is retrieved and when to call it. The remaining gap is the un-explained identifier and verification failure behavior.

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?

There is a single required parameter, passport_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no meaning at all. The description never explains what a Passport ID is, its format, or where it comes from, leaving the parameter semantics unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb pair (retrieve and verify) and a specific resource (an Economic Passport plus its immutable outcome history). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the write-oriented sibling issue_economic_passport, though it never names alternatives explicitly.

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 states two concrete triggering conditions: a counterparty presenting a Passport, or a need to inspect transaction evidence. That is clear usage context, but it offers no exclusions or pointers to alternatives such as agent_economic_history.

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