Issue Agent Passport

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

Annotations cover mutation/non-idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the server 'silently captures Tier 0 observed signals' and computes a passport grade (0-3) as a side effect. It does not describe auth/principal requirements or whether an existing passport is overwritten, but it discloses more than the annotations do.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with the primary action first and the bundle contents up front; no redundancy. The trailing 'without an npm install' is more of a selling point than operational guidance, a minor bit of non-earning text.

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 helpfully names the returns (keys, signed passport, attestation summary, grade), which is what an agent needs to know it is a full issuance call. It omits auth/principal prerequisites and the fate of a pre-existing passport for the same agent, leaving minor gaps for a mutating onboarding tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only gestures at the 'optional values floor' (attest_to_floor) and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Issue a complete agent passport') and enumerates the bundle contents (keys, signed passport, attestation summary, optional values floor). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_keys or get_passport_grade, which cover only part of that output.

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?

'Use this to onboard any agent without an npm install' gives a clear usage context and even implies a convenience rationale. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to call generate_keys + verify_issuer separately instead), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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