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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this mutates but is neither destructive nor repeatable-safe. The description adds the 'approved mandate' prerequisite and a 'Free' cost note, which are genuine additions. It does not disclose what the proposal persists or what a repeated call does, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Very short and the key resource is front-loaded, which is good. But it is composed of clipped fragments ('Never: ...', 'Free.') that read as notes rather than a coherent definition, and the standalone 'Free.' spends a sentence on cost without context.

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 one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite and the general output form. It is still thin on what the resulting proposal is, whether it is persisted, and what distinguishes it from the commit-style siblings, so it is adequate but not 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a regex pattern and a pointer to mandate.create. The description's 'for this mandate' is consistent but adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description identifies the resource ('The WhatsApp-to-payment flow for this mandate') and the output form ('as a configuration proposal'), so an agent can roughly infer what it produces. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from siblings like mandate_create, assign, or payment_collect — the agent must guess that this 'proposes' rather than commits. It is a sentence fragment rather than a stated action.

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?

'Never: Bind a channel or an account without an approved mandate' is a precondition (mandate must be approved), which is useful, but it is framed as a prohibition rather than guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. No sibling is named and no when-to-use context is given beyond the mandate prerequisite.

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