Issue an agent passport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effects (credential + private key written to an operator-configured home directory, revocation slot registered on the ledger) and the security posture (result references artifacts by path and never contains key material). It omits required permissions and re-issuance/overwrite behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 information-dense sentences that front-load the verb and resource, then enumerate the mechanics. Nothing is wasted, though the mechanics list is slightly packed.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers creation side effects, storage location, and the absence of key material in the result, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. Gaps are the undocumented valid_days semantics and error/idempotency 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 coverage is only 50%: agent_name is documented in the schema, but valid_days has no schema description and the description says nothing about it (validity window, defaults, bounds). The description adds context about artifacts, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 (Issue) and resource (Agent Delegation Credential / SD-JWT VC) and scopes it to a NEW agent, with concrete mechanics (vault keys, did:key, revocation slot). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling issuance tools (issue_mandate, issue_token), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 'for a NEW agent' phrasing implies the appropriate context (provisioning, not re-issuing), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives among the three issue_* siblings, so the agent must infer routing.

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