get_pass

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently reflects a read-only operation ('Get', 'Returns'). The description adds specific return content details (wallet URLs, badge URLs) and the behavior of includeTemplate, but does not disclose error conditions, prioritization of id vs externalId, or authorization requirements. With the annotation covering safety, the added value is moderate.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and lookup methods, then adding return content and an optional flag. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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-only tool with five documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage patterns (lookup methods) and the notable optional behavior (includeTemplate). It does not address edge cases like conflicting parameters or response error shapes, but these are minor against the readOnlyHint and schema guidance.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that id is exclusive with externalId+templateId, and that includeTemplate controls inclusion of full template data. This helps an agent choose the correct parameter combination and understand the boolean's effect.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'single pass', and specifies two lookup methods (by ID or externalId + templateId). It also enumerates what the response contains (wallet download URLs and installation badge URLs), distinguishing it from siblings like list_passes, search_passes, and export_passes which involve multiple or different operations.

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 explains the two acceptable lookup modes and the purpose of includeTemplate, effectively guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative siblings or state when not to use it, such as when needing multiple passes or template-only data, leaving some implicit guidance.

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