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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: 200 vs 201 status codes, automatic application to sibling passes, the required scope, and the OpenAPI endpoint mapping. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every section adds value: idempotency, dual-wallet behavior, scope, endpoint mapping, and rate-limit context. There is minor redundancy with the opening phrase repeating the tool name, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The description covers use case, idempotency, dual-wallet behavior, scope, endpoint, and operational constraints. With no output schema, it does not specify the exact response payload shape, but it clearly states that a token is returned and that the share URL points to a public wallet-add page, which is sufficient 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 fully documents pass_id and x_app_id. The description adds context about pass behavior (dual-wallet sibling passes) but does not elaborate on x_app_id override semantics; the schema already carries that weight.

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 and resource: 'Creates a public share token for a pass,' and explains the purpose (distribution via URL, QR code, or messaging). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling read/metadata tools like getSharePassMetadata and downloadSharedPass by being the creation operation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a pass needs a public share token for wallet distribution. It also covers relevant edge behavior such as idempotency and dual-wallet propagation, though it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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