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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only action and restricts access to public or unlisted owner-verified passports, which is meaningful access context. It does not discuss auth or not-found behavior, but for a simple read-by-ID operation the core behavior is unambiguous.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Read'), states the resource, the access scope, and the lookup key. Every word 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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the resource, the access scope, and the identifier. It omits alternative routing and error semantics, but those are less critical here; the core call contract is fully usable.

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 supply parameter meaning. It does so by identifying the key as a UUID, which maps directly to the sole required passport_id parameter. The schema's regex pattern already encodes format, but the description adds the conceptual role.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Passport'), and scopes the operation to 'one public or unlisted owner-verified Passport by UUID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling discover_search: read requires a known UUID, search is for discovery.

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 phrase 'by UUID' implies this tool is appropriate when the caller already has a passport identifier, while search tools would be used to find one. However, no alternative tool is named, and there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the guidance to inference.

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