get_part_passport

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and the one genuinely useful disclosure is 'Requires Kiln Pro' — a gating/auth condition the agent otherwise could not know. The remainder describes unrelated paid features (calibration, mid-print edits, textures) and an upgrade URL rather than this tool's behavior, so it is unclear whether the call fails without Pro, returns partial data, or returns everything regardless of tier.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The following three lines are marketing copy and an upgrade link that consume most of the definition's length without describing the tool.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least enumerate what the 'passport' bundle contains so the agent can decide to call it instead of several narrower tools. Instead it describes a subscription tier, leaving the return payload and any tier-gating failure mode undocumented.

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 0% for the single required design_id, so the description must compensate and does not — it only implies a part/design is targeted without saying whether design_id is a UUID, slug, or name. Baseline 4 for zero params does not apply here since one undocumented parameter exists.

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 opening line names a verb and resource ('Everything about one part/design in a single call — the Part Passport'), which tells the agent this is an aggregate read for a single design. But 'everything about' is vague about what is actually aggregated, and it never distinguishes itself from nearby readers like get_design, inspect_design, or list_design_components, all of which appear in the sibling list.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this versus get_design, inspect_design, or get_design_version. The only selection-adjacent text is a tier pitch about Kiln Pro features, which does not tell the agent which condition should select this tool over its many siblings.

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