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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds material operational context the annotations cannot convey: a 30-day validity window, an authentication requirement (organization API key), and a pay-per-call path via x402. That is exactly the extra behavior an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent, metered mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and purpose, then layers in verification routing, validity, and pricing in a logical order. It is dense and multi-clause but each clause carries decision-relevant information; only the enumeration of scoring inputs is arguably expendable.

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 usefully characterizes the returned artifact (a signed credential scored 0-1000, graded A-E, valid 30 days) and the billing/auth context. It does not say what identifier or fields come back on issuance, which would have closed the last gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 the single parameter (stream_id) is fully documented in the schema itself ('Issue for one agent (stream). Omit for the whole organization'). The description echoes the agent-vs-organization scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Issue a Privi Passport') and immediately defines the artifact as a signed, on-chain-anchored trust credential, including its scoring model and grade range. It explicitly routes the agent to the verification siblings (passport_verify / passport_gate), so it is distinguishable from them without opening either 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 clear context for use: issue the credential to show counterparties, who verify it free via passport_verify / passport_gate. It also states prerequisites (organization API key) and cost conditions (free on Pro/enterprise, paid per passport on free plans via x402). It does not state when not to issue, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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