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

The description discloses a two-step, stateful protocol: a bare first call returns a nonce and preimage, and the second call must include a signature over a precisely specified string. It also explains behavioral outcomes—city verifies key possession, reader checks residence—and explicitly disclaims reputation semantics. This adds substantial context beyond the minimal 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?

The description is dense and information-heavy, but every clause contributes: protocol version, nonce handshake, signature preimage, verification behavior, and exclusion of reputation. It lacks bullet formatting or paragraph breaks, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 complex, stateful tool with eight parameters and no meaningful annotations, the description covers the essential flow, signing rules, and verification semantics. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. Minor omissions like error conditions or explicit required-field behavior for the second call keep it from a perfect score.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 38%, the description compensates by defining the exact role of city, handle, public_key, signature, and nonce through the preimage format and signature binding. It does not elaborate on the controller_* and leave_token parameters, but those already have explicit descriptions in the schema. Overall, it adds real semantic value to the previously undocumented core parameters.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (POST /api/passport), the protocol version (GRITH-PASSPORT/1), and the purpose: enabling one agent to establish identity/residence across cities. It goes beyond a generic verb by explaining that the city verifies key possession and the reader checks residence against the other city. It also differentiates itself with 'Not a reputation.'

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 description gives unusually explicit operational guidance: call with no signature first to get a nonce and preimage, then call again with the signed payload. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but it establishes a clear use case and an exclusion ('Not a reputation'), so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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