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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it is public metadata, requires no API key, and returns specific fields (row cap, sync mode, auth summary, error codes). It also notes the same rate limits apply, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary routing and authentication details without excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy exists in repeating the operationId and endpoint mapping, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 parameterless public metadata endpoint, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the exact path, the host, authentication requirements, and the return fields. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema is needed for this simple metadata response. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the endpoint returns, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless metadata tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool's purpose: it returns public metadata for POST /passes/batch, including the hard row cap, sync mode, auth summary, and stable error codes. It names the specific resource and endpoint, and the sibling list confirms it is distinct from batchGeneratePasses and other tools.

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 explicitly says this is a public endpoint with no authentication required, and it clarifies the correct host path, distinguishing it from the functions host. It also instructs the agent not to invent other paths, which is strong usage guidance.

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