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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, and the description adds genuinely valuable behavior: inputs are 'processed transiently', 'not stored, logged, or retained', the node is deterministic, and it exports an 'AP2 artifact with execution_hash' for provenance. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 main behavioral and safety facts are front-loaded and clearly ordered, but the description repeats compute-mode details already present in the schema and includes a tangential FV-status snapshot paragraph about offline verification. It is informative but not tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the validator returns; it only says it 'exports an AP2 artifact with execution_hash' and references upstream/downstream artifacts. It also defers policy_parameters field names to an unspecified manifest, leaving a caller partially reliant on external context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond restating compute modes and pointing to a manifest for policy_parameters field names, 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?

The description identifies the tool as an 'OBO Mandate Validator' and an 'OpenChainGraph compute node (compliance_mandate)', so the broad domain is clear. However, it never states what the validation actually checks or what constitutes a valid or invalid mandate, and the tool name/title carries most of the semantic load. It distinguishes the artifact position in a chain via upstream/downstream references, but not enough to differentiate it from the many sibling validate_* tools.

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 gives concrete compute-mode guidance ('compute:"browser" forces client-side execution and returns a browser delegation URL', default auto, gpu:true delegates) and insists 'Use synthetic or anonymised inputs only'. It does not say when to prefer this validator over sibling mandate or agent validation tools, nor does it specify preconditions beyond the artifact chain references.

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