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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-schema behavior — the two-phase summary-then-fields pattern and the not_covered outcome the agent must handle. The remaining bulk is answer-formatting policy (no invented dates, keep citations and disclaimers, no vendor ranking) rather than tool mechanics, which is useful but not classic behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose and the summary-then-fields workflow are front-loaded in the first sentence and a half. The tail is a long run of prohibition clauses; each maps to a distinct compliance risk, but they are numerous enough that the definition reads as policy text appended to a tool description.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields and defining the not_covered result. It doesn't discuss result size, ordering, or behavior for an invalid subType (left to the schema), so a small gap remains, but the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and already documents `group` (omit for summary, provide for fields), `locale`, `subType` and the category enum with mapping advice. The description's 'call without group / with a group' restates the schema rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the data a passport must contain for a product category') and enumerates the returned facets (requiring article, audience, change frequency, origin). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like create_draft_passport, registry_guidance or what_changed, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit calling sequence: without `group` for a summary of counts, then with a `group` for the fields, plus a defined branch for the not_covered result. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them over this one, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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