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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: the operation is free (no cost gating), the evidence class is custody-only, and residency fields are self-asserted rather than verified. It still omits whether the call is read-only, any auth/prerequisite requirements, and how a failed versus inconclusive verification is reported.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the concrete checks, then the caveats — no filler sentences. The final sentence is dense and requires a careful read, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and evidence limits well, but it never indicates what a verification response contains (verdict, findings, chain status) or how to obtain the passport_id. Those gaps are material given nothing else documents them.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description is responsible for explaining what a passport_id is and where it comes from — and it says nothing about it. The one param is at least conventional enough that an agent can probably pass it, which prevents a 1.

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 a specific verb and resource plus the exact checks performed: "Verify a data passport's signatures, hash chain, and policy violations." That is far more informative than the bare name. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like verify_badge or trust_check, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

"Custody evidence only" plus the residency/attestation caveat tells the agent exactly what scope this call legitimately covers and where its conclusions stop. What is missing is a pointer to an alternative when the agent needs verified residency or attestation quotes, so the agent must infer the fallback.

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