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 useful behavioral context: it returns full details, requires the passes:read scope, and explicitly warns against inventing other paths. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but for a single-resource GET with strong annotations, this is adequate.

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: the first line states the action, then the return value, scope, operationId, and a clear warning. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple single-resource GET with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, HTTP mapping, and a caution about not inventing paths. It could mention the response format, but no output schema exists and the description already says 'full details,' which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 ('id' and 'x_app_id'). The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning the HTTP path and scope, but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single pass'), and explicitly says it returns 'full details of a single pass.' It also names the OpenAPI operationId and HTTP path, which distinguishes it from siblings like getPassBySerial, downloadPass, and listPasses. The scope line ('passes:read') further clarifies its read-only purpose.

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 provides clear context: it maps to GET /manage-passes/{id}, states the scope, and notes that it shares the same PassFast HTTP API, billing, and rate limits. It also warns 'Do not invent other paths.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like getPassBySerial or listPasses, so an agent must infer when to choose this over those siblings.

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