owned_passes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint that only active/current passes are returned and that scope is the signed-in account, but says nothing about expiry semantics, pagination, or result volume.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the two scoping qualifiers that actually distinguish the result set.

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 an output schema present plus rich read-only annotations and no parameters, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs to select and call the tool. Only the precise meaning of 'active' (unexpired vs. currently valid) is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema can carry no semantics and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Return') and a clearly scoped resource ('active/current passes owned by the signed-in account'), so the agent knows it is not the full catalogue. It never names the sibling pass_catalogue, leaving the contrast to inference.

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 phrase 'owned by the signed-in account' implicitly signals this is the personal-passes lookup rather than the catalogue, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many siblings.

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