accesso_get_wallet_passes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that not every merchant enables passes, but does not describe the output format or behavior when passes are unavailable. This is acceptable but not richly 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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is first, followed by a practical usage note and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose, the output type (save links), and a key limitation. It does not detail the exact response structure, but the absence of an output schema makes the description reasonably complete.

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 description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the tool's output: Google Wallet save links for tickets on an accesso order. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like accesso_get_order and accesso_save_barcodes, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 gives clear usage context: these links are meant to be opened on a phone to add a ticket to Google Wallet. It also notes that not every merchant enables passes, warning about a potential limitation. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when it applies.

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