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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the required 'orders:read' scope and that the record is durable. It does not describe not-found behavior, return contents, or other operational constraints beyond the scope requirement.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The core retrieval purpose is front-loaded, and the scope prerequisite follows immediately.

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 low-complexity single-ID read tool with rich annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and auth scope. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it omits what the returned durable record contains and adds no parameter detail, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 carry the burden for the single required purchase_id parameter, but it provides no additional meaning, format, or source guidance for that ID. The schema only gives the property name and uuid format, and the description does not clarify whether this is a board-pass purchase ID, order ID, or other identifier.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('durable record of a posting-pass purchase'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_order, get_board_time_purchase, or get_board_usage, and the name/title say 'board pass' while the description says 'posting-pass', which adds slight terminology ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Retrieve the durable record of a posting-pass purchase' and the required scope is stated, but the description does not say when to use this tool versus get_order, list_orders, or other purchase-related siblings. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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