Get Post-Issuance Behavior

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the core behavior of returning the first 10 post-issuance tool calls, but says nothing about the shape of those calls, ordering, or what happens when fewer than 10 exist.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the interpretive commentary. The final aphorism about farming agents is arguably editorial, but it does encode the diagnostic intent efficiently.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only partially does so (first 10 tool calls). For a simple one-parameter read tool the essentials are present, but an agent still cannot predict the response structure.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines agent_id fully. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a concrete verb and resource (get the post-issuance behavioral sequence for an agent) and narrows the scope to the first 10 tool calls after passport issuance. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_evidence or get_passport_grade, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing line about farming agents signals the tool exists to spot extractive behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative for cases where a different evidence tool is more appropriate. An agent can infer the intent but must guess at the boundaries.

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