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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned fields and, importantly, the organization API key requirement, which is a real operational precondition not present in the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The payload description is front-loaded and the auth constraint follows immediately, so nothing needs to be skimmed past.

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 names the fields a caller will receive (score, grade, expiry, revocation) plus the auth requirement, which is what an agent needs to call it confidently. Only a brief note on ordering or pagination is absent, which is minor for a no-arg list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related that the description needs to explain, and it avoids inventing nonexistent arguments.

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 resource and scope: "Your organization's issued passports," which clearly separates it from siblings like passport_verify or passport_issue. It also enumerates the returned fields (score, grade, expiry, revocation). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it doesn't reach the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only listing nature of the tool, and the auth prerequisite is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to related tools such as passport_verify or passport_revoke. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no decision rules.

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