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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds meaningful non-annotation context (pricing is free, an optional org API key causes the decision to be written to a tamper-evident due-diligence log). These are real behavioral traits beyond the safety hints, though rate limits or failure modes are unmentioned.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core decision purpose is front-loaded and pricing/logging details follow. It is tight, but the logging clause is slightly compressed and could be clearer about auth requirements.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does supply the return shape ('returning the reasons') and notes the free tier. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it does not describe whether reasons are codes or prose.

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 in the schema. The description adds little beyond a loose reference to 'your minimums' covering min_grade/min_score, 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 outcome: an allow/deny decision that verifies a Privi Passport against caller-supplied minimums. It clearly separates itself from the sibling passport_verify by framing the call as a pre-transaction gate that returns reasons rather than a raw verification.

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 'before transacting with another AI agent' gives a clear trigger condition, so the agent knows when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming passport_verify as the alternative for plain verification, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than exhaustive.

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