passaportes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is a re-verification performed offline and lists what is checked, implying a read-only action. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention permissions, error conditions, or what happens if verification fails.

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 a single sentence, efficiently conveying the action and the checks. It is not overly verbose or redundant. The structure is acceptable, though the colon-separated list could be slightly clearer, but it remains appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'how' reasonably well. It explains the purpose and the dimensions checked. However, it lacks any indication of when to invoke it relative to other tools and does not mention any prerequisites, so it is not fully complete.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds relevant contextual detail about what the call verifies and outputs, which complements the absence of parameters without needing to explain any.

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 action ('RE-VERIFICADOS offline') on a specific resource ('passaportes de pagador (F10)') and lists the checks performed (integrity, policy acceptance, reasons, metrics). It is clear enough to understand the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'fiscal' or 'vereditos' that might also perform verification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose this over a sibling beyond the name and vague purpose.

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