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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is free, needs no API key, performs a live re-score at call time, and catches post-issue tampering. It does not describe latency, rate limits, or what happens on a failed check.

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 action and its purpose, followed by a compact list of the checks performed and a short "Free; no key needed" tag. The long clause chain is dense but every element (each verification step) carries information; minor tightening is possible but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and enumerating the five checks implicitly tells the agent what the result will report on. Safety is covered by annotations. What is missing is the shape of the response (per-check booleans, overall verdict) and failure behavior, but the enumeration makes the tool callable as-is.

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 both parameters (passport, passport_id) are documented in the schema itself, including the "pp_... ID, or omit and pass the passport document" alternative. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, 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?

Specific verb (check/verify) applied to a specific resource (Privi Passport), and it enumerates exactly what is verified: signature, content integrity, expiry/revocation, chain anchor, and a live re-score. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling passport_issue, passport_revoke, passport_list, and passport_gate without opening any 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?

"Check an AI agent's Privi Passport before trusting it" gives a clear usage context (pre-trust verification). It does not name an alternative or state any when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of the explicit routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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