HANRIA agent mandate check

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the decision vocabulary (permit, deny, escalate), the returned artifacts (governing clause, reason, action digest, signed receipt), the error-handling rule ('treat error as deny'), and the crucial limitation that it is advisory and 'cannot stop an action' and keeps no request content. These are exactly the behaviors annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with purpose and triggering conditions, then moves to parameters, outputs, caveats, and the sibling pointer, with the two Examples/Docs pointers at the tail. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries weight; the parenthetical nesting makes parts slightly harder to scan than ideal.

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 complex nested schema with an output schema present, the description supplies what the schema cannot: invocation timing, the advisory-only nature, error semantics, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains mandate carries the operator's rules and that 'the first matching clause decides,' and summarizes the action shape (kind, verb, target, optional counterparty and amount). This clarifies evaluation order beyond the schema's field-level docs.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check an agent action against a mandate') and frames the timing ('before your agent does something consequential'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming validate_mandate as the tool for checking a new mandate first. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it ('before your agent does something consequential') and enumerates triggering actions (sends, pays, deletes, publishes, installs, changes access). It also routes to the alternative: call validate_mandate to check a new mandate first. Both the when and the alternative are stated outright.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds non-structured traits: it is free, retains no request content, and enumerates the exact error classes it reports (schema errors, unreachable clauses, unbounded prefixes, credential material, expiry). It also explains the consequence of an invalid mandate on check_action, which is real behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and timing, then the error taxonomy, then frequency and cost. Dense but mostly purposeful; the docs link and the return-value mention are slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but nothing is bloated.

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 validation tool with a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call, what it detects, the downstream consequence, and cost/privacy. Return format is already handled by the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the mandate object in depth (including the credential-material caveat and prefix-matching semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check a mandate for errors') and clarifies it validates a mandate rather than an action, which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_action. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('after writing or editing a mandate, before relying on it'), an exclusion ('no need to call it before every check_action'), and a frequency rule ('once per mandate version is enough'). This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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