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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral fact that the tool is retired and returns a static response rather than performing any passport creation. It does not explain why the schema still requires name and description, which is a meaningful gap for a schema that looks like a creation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the retirement notice front-loaded. Every clause earns its place (status, cost, human path, agent path, current behavior), though the sentence is packed.

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?

It explains the tool's dead-end behavior and points to alternatives, which is enough to avoid misuse. However, it leaves unexplained why a retired tool still declares two required parameters, and there is no output schema to clarify what the canned answer looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not reconcile the mismatch between the required name/description fields and the tool's stated no-op behavior.

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?

States the tool's status (RETIRED) and its current operation precisely: it returns a single canned answer about Arc Agent Passport pricing. This clearly distinguishes it from arc_passport_buy, which the description names as the actual purchase path.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: humans pay at the given URL, agents use arc_passport_buy, and this tool only returns that answer. An agent knows exactly when to use it (never, for purchasing) and which sibling to call instead.

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