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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: cost ('Free'), auth ('no key needed'), and the fact that it does an on-chain Base lookup plus a live re-score, meaning results reflect current state and re-contact external services. Missing any note on latency or failure behavior.

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 purpose, then a compact list of checks. Nearly every clause carries information, though the trailing parenthetical about tampering-after-issue is somewhat redundant with 'content unaltered' earlier in the same sentence.

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 leaves the return shape unspecified — an agent cannot tell whether it gets an overall verdict, a per-check breakdown, or an error on failure. The check list implies the result dimensions but not the format or semantics of a partial failure.

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 the schema already explains both the 'passport' document and the 'pp_...' ID, including that either is acceptable. The description contributes nothing about the parameters, so 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 (verify/check) and resource (Privi Passport) and enumerates exactly what is checked: signature, content integrity, expiry/revocation, on-chain Base anchor, and a live re-score. This clearly separates it from passport_issue, passport_list, passport_revoke, and passport_gate.

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?

'Before trusting it' gives the trigger condition explicitly, and the enumerated checks add the rationale for using this over a sibling. It does not name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when passport_gate is the right call), so it falls short of a 5.

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