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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context by disclosing the trust anchor used (the published key at /.well-known/jwks.json) and the four distinct checks performed. It does not state failure modes (e.g., what a broken chain returns), which is a minor gap.

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 dense sentences with the four checks front-loaded and the key-location detail placed last; no filler. The list-style phrasing is efficient, though the compressed 'was any section not read' clause reads slightly awkwardly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage routing to the sibling tools, the definition leaves real gaps for a two-parameter verification 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. The phrase 'chain of versions intact' loosely gestures at the optional 'version' parameter but never explains that it pins verification to a specific version, and the passport_id format/source is never described.

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 (passport) and enumerates exactly what is validated: signature validity, version-chain integrity, stamp age, and unread sections. It is clearly distinguishable from get_passport/list_passports in intent, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 — this is the tool you call to validate rather than merely retrieve a passport — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the get_passport/list_passports alternatives. An agent can infer the routing but must do so unaided.

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