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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It provides high-value operational traits: authentication requirement, trust band validation, specific metered cost, and the function of the idempotencyKey. This avoids ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 highly efficient, front-loading the core action and immediately following up with critical operational requirements (auth, cost). Every word provides distinct information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description is exceptionally complete for a high-stakes financial operation. It covers input requirements, authentication methods, technical guarantees (idempotency), and business constraints (metering/pricing), leaving virtually no ambiguity for an executing agent.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds vital semantic meaning. It clarifies the purpose of the optional 'idempotencyKey' (preventing double-charging) and provides a complete, runnable JSON example that illustrates the expected payload structure for the agent.

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 defines the action ('Issue') and the resource ('Agent Capability Passport'). By framing it as a 'scoped' passport validated against a 'trust band', it clearly defines its unique operational domain within the larger suite of PABandi tools.

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?

It establishes critical usage constraints, including the requirement for Bearer token authentication and defining a clear metered cost ('PAB_FEE_PER_PASSPORT'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the presence of cost and trust band validation helps an agent decide if this function is appropriate for its task.

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