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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it explicitly says the tool 'returns compact identity, mandate, status, ownership, and the public passport URL without echoing the full signed envelope,' and clarifies that 'the lookup itself is public' and session_token is optional. This disambiguates auth requirements – a reader knows no token is needed. Minor gap: doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the return payload and auth clarification. No filler; every clause 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return shape (compact identity, mandate, status, ownership, public URL) and auth posture. It should ideally mention what 'compact' excludes or error handling for invalid passport_id, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (including the kya_ pattern and session_token format). The description adds the useful clarification that session_token is optional and not required for reading, which is slightly beyond the schema, but the baseline for full coverage is 3.

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 and resource: 'resolve a public FLINT Agent Passport by passport_id.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like validate_agent_commerce_readiness, verify_agent_authority, or issue_agent_passport. The scope ('public', 'compact') is precisely stated.

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 description implies usage (read a passport, lookup is public) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like verify_agent_authority or lookup_agent_reputation. A reader can infer it's for reading passport data, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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