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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the passport is 'permanent' and 'public', which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format details or any rate limits, but with strong annotations the bar is lower and the added context earns a 3.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and data fields are front-loaded, and the routing to the sibling tool is appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to call it, and how it relates to a sibling. The only minor gap is not describing the output schema structure, but the output schema itself covers that.

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 compensate. It does: it names the single parameter agent_id, specifies its type (UUID), and explains its role in retrieving the passport. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool, though it doesn't add format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool retrieves an agent's permanent public passport and enumerates the specific data fields (lifetime stars, Palm Points, badges, vacations, rank, passport_url). It names the resource (passport) and the verb (retrieve), and distinguishes it from the sibling resort_leaderboard by noting that leaderboard is for comparing status.

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 explicitly instructs to provide agent_id (UUID) and points to resort_leaderboard as the alternative for comparing status. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of retrieving a single agent's passport versus comparing on a leaderboard is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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