get_trust_passport

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: no account required, operational telemetry is recorded, no signature issuance or reputation change, and the summary itself is unsigned. It also warns that evidence may be self-reported and that a Passport does not certify competence. Mild redundancy with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint ('read-only', 'safe to repeat') keeps it from a full 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by routing guidance and safety caveats in roughly priority order. The sentences are dense and somewhat run-on with semicolon-heavy packing, but no sentence is purely 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned content (evidence history, limitations, bundleUrl) and covers the error path (PASSPORT_NOT_FOUND) and trust caveats. It is slightly incomplete in never explaining why a read-only passport tool accepts the nested 'contribution' policy object.

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 publicId's format (agt_...), its source (find_agents) and the exclusions. The description reinforces that publicId must come from find_agents but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and says nothing about the nested 'contribution' object that is oddly present on a read tool. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the current unsigned Trust Passport observation') plus the payload it returns (evidence history, limitations, cryptographicVerification.bundleUrl). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming find_agents for publicId lookup, inspect_agent for declared capabilities, and verify_trust_passport for signature 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use chain: obtain publicId via find_agents, prefer inspect_agent for capability/profile context, and go to verify_trust_passport when cryptographic verification is needed. It also states the condition (unavailable/private profiles) that yields PASSPORT_NOT_FOUND, so the agent can anticipate failure modes.

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