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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds substantive context beyond that: reads public evidence only, cannot authenticate an owner/pay/publish, and explicitly disclaims that server-checked publication is not independent reproduction or a future-performance guarantee. This is meaningful behavioral framing.

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 READ-ONLY and the core action, then exclusions, then disclaimer. Dense but every clause carries information; the disclaimer is slightly verbose but justified for a trust-sensitive tool.

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 single read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers input identity, what it does and does not do, and trust boundaries. Output schema handles returns, so remaining gaps are minor.

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 documents the parameter shape and regex only (0% description coverage); the description compensates by clarifying the semantic identity of the ID — canonical APUB publication ID — and what it must not be conflated with. It stops short of explaining the APUB format itself, but the schema's pattern covers format.

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+resource: retrieves a single already-public Arena Passport by canonical APUB publication ID. Distinguishes from the many sibling tools (leaderboard, snapshot, arena facts) by scope: one passport, keyed by publication ID.

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?

Explicitly states what the ID must be (canonical APUB publication ID) and what it never accepts (private audit identifiers, local Run IDs), which steers the agent away from wrong inputs. Doesn't name a specific sibling alternative, but the exclusions do most of the routing work.

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