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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that access is public (no auth implied) and enumerates the returned fields (feePab, ownerUserId, agentId, riskBand, capabilities, chargedAt). It omits not-found/error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose and key, followed by the return payload and a compact example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 listing return fields is exactly the right compensation, and a single-parameter lookup needs little more. Only the failure case (unknown key) is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving a concrete example of the idempotencyKey value format ("iss-3001"), which tells the agent what shape of key to supply.

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 ('look up') and resource ('passport issuance charge') plus the lookup key, which distinguishes it from write-side siblings like pabandi_issue_passport and pabandi_verify_passport. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'public audit' implies a read-only reconciliation context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus pabandi_issue_passport or when a key would be absent. The use case is implied rather than directed.

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