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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining what idempotency means in practice (existing token returned with 200 instead of 201) and the automatic application to sibling passes for dual-wallet scenarios. It also discloses the required scope and notes that the same API, billing, and rate limits apply. This adds useful context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by focused details. Each paragraph adds necessary information: idempotency, dual-wallet handling, scope, and API context. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes to understanding how to use the tool correctly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical behavioral aspects: idempotency, dual-wallet sibling propagation, required scope, rate limits, and endpoint mapping. An agent can confidently invoke this tool without missing information needed to make a correct call.

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. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it also does not need to. It correctly relies on the schema, which is the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the action (create a share token), the resource (a pass), and the purpose (enabling distribution via URL, QR code, or messaging). It is specific and distinguishes itself from other share-related operations like downloadSharedPass or getSharePassMetadata by focusing on token creation. The endpoint mapping and scope further clarify its unique role.

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 explains when to use the tool: to create a public share token for a pass. It also covers idempotency and dual-wallet behavior, which informs the agent when it might reuse an existing token. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the context is strong enough to infer.

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