get_passport_grade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a query (read-only) and describes the return contents (grade, flags, evidence summary) and the meaning of grade values. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether any state is modified, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, the second sentence lists return elements and grade meanings. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 1-parameter query tool with a well-described schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (grade, flags, evidence summary), and the grading scale. The main gap is the lack of context around 'partner-facing' and any error-handling behavior, but these are secondary for a read-only query.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'agent_id' with a clear description ('The agent ID of the passport to query'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries the attestation grade and issuance context for a passport, which is a specific verb+resource. It further explains the return values and grade scale (0-3), making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the unique focus on 'passport grade' differentiates it from similar tools like verify_issuer.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'This is the partner-facing trust query,' which implies an intended audience/use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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