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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned data composition, including a cryptographic signature and verification recipe, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state side effects, error behavior, permissions, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists the returned items. Every phrase adds value, there is no repetition or fluff, and the structure is easy to scan.

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-oriented tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential input and output composition. It stops short of detailing return structure, error conditions, or how the verification recipe should be used, but an agent can correctly invoke the tool with the provided information.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only gives shortid as a string. The description adds meaning by indicating shortid is the lookup key for a single observation, but it provides no format, constraints, or example. It compensates partially but not fully for the missing schema description coverage.

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 verb 'get' and a clear resource: a single signed observation's passport keyed by shortid. It enumerates the returned contents (value, vintage, source URL, schema, Ed25519 signature, verification recipe), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with panels, movers, or series.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use when a shortid is available, but it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it point to siblings like search_series or get_movers for broader retrieval needs.

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