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: pagination, scope requirement, and that it maps to a specific HTTP endpoint with shared rate limits. It doesn't describe the response shape, but with no output schema and read-only semantics, the added context is meaningful.

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 core action is in the first line, followed by scope, endpoint mapping, and a guardrail. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is clean and scannable.

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 read-only list tool with 10 optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers scope, endpoint, pagination, and rate limits. The only minor gap is not describing the response format or default ordering, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a simple list, this is acceptable.

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 all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention pagination generally. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('List passes') and clarifies it returns a paginated list for the current app. It also maps to the OpenAPI operationId and endpoint, which helps disambiguate from siblings like getPass, getPassBySerial, and listTemplates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 lists passes for the current app, requires the `passes:read` scope, and notes the same HTTP API, billing, and rate limits. It also warns not to invent other paths. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this over getPass or listTemplates, but the scope and endpoint mapping give enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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