Get Passport Grade

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 domain-specific behavioral context the annotations cannot: the 0-3 grade scale with the meaning of each level (self-signed, issuer countersigned, runtime-bound, principal-bound), which is the key semantic an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return values then the grade scale. Every sentence contributes; only the trailing 'partner-facing trust query' line is close to redundant with the opening.

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 properly compensates by naming the returned fields and decoding the grade scale. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits any hint about error/absent-passport behavior.

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% for the single agent_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what is in the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource (query the attestation grade and issuance context for a passport) and enumerates the returned fields (grade 0-3, flags, evidence summary). It differentiates itself from adjacent trust tools like get_evidence and check_tier by labeling itself 'the partner-facing trust query,' though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'This is the partner-facing trust query' implies the audience and context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against the many sibling verification/attestation tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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