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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content context about LP-facing versus founder-facing claims and source/date attribution, but it does not add behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or authorization requirements beyond the redundant 'Read-only' note.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the data being returned and avoids unnecessary repetition. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly starting with the listing action, but it remains efficient and readable.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the mandate notes contain and how claims are presented, while the schema and output schema cover the parameter shape and return structure.

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% and there is only one parameter, companyId, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description does not explain that companyId scopes the list to a specific company, but the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 specifies the resource content: mandate notes covering each firm's stated stage, sector, cheque size, geography, LP-facing and founder-facing claims, with source and date. It distinguishes the data from a simple note by emphasizing side-by-side claims, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as record_mandate_note or list_category_notes.

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 says it is read-only, which implies viewing rather than modifying, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention the related record_mandate_note write tool, category notes, or any prerequisite for retrieving mandate notes.

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