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

Annotations already convey safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the operation is paid (x402) and incremental. This is meaningful additional disclosure, though it does not explain operational details like what data is refreshed or any side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and cost, making every word count. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the simple schema and annotations, the description is still incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and any indication of return values or behavior. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description-level context, which is not provided.

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?

The schema has one parameter (passport_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning or format. The phrase 'passport/decision' hints at what the ID refers to, but it does not explicitly connect the parameter to the description, leaving the agent with minimal semantic information.

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 states a specific action ('incremental refresh') on a resource ('passport/decision'), which clearly indicates what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'refresh_company_passport', and 'passport/decision' is somewhat ambiguous, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'refresh_company_passport' or verification tools. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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