get_passport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: the user will be prompted for consent before data is returned. However, it does not mention what happens if consent is denied, whether the operation is read-only (implied), or any other side effects or limitations. The consent disclosure is valuable but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase earns its place. The consent prompt sentence adds crucial behavioral information without padding.

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 simple read tool, the description covers the core purpose and consent behavior. It does not explicitly mention the document_id requirement (though the schema handles that) or differentiate itself from the generic get_document sibling. Given no output schema, the description could be slightly richer, but it is still adequate for the tool's complexity.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning 'specific fields' (relating to the fields array) and consent (relating to the purpose string), but does not elaborate beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('stored passport') and clearly scopes to 'specific fields'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_national_id, get_driving_license, and get_visa, which target other document types, and from the generic get_document.

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 description makes clear this is for retrieving specific passport fields and mentions the consent prompt, giving context on when to use it. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance (e.g., when to use get_document instead), but the context is sufficiently clear for a passport-specific tool.

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