tool_get_passport_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's outputs but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, data sources, or limitations. It is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 concise: a single summary sentence followed by clear arg descriptions. No redundancy, well front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains inputs and outputs but does not specify the return format or structure of the metrics. For an agent, this could lead to ambiguity when processing results.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: passport_country is 'Your passport ISO2 code' and compare_with is 'Optional second passport ISO2 for comparison'. This clarifies the format and purpose beyond the schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool ranks passport strength and optionally compares two passports head-to-head, listing specific metrics (visa-free count, frictionless %, regional breakdown, Henley 2024 rank). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_check_visa_requirement or tool_visa_free_destinations.

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 implies usage for ranking or comparing passports but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., tool_visa_free_destinations) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for selection.

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