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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs incremental context — it adds the two-mode return behavior and the 'Free during beta' pricing caveat, which an agent would otherwise not know. It stops short of describing pagination or whether the bare list is exhaustive.

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 verb and resource, followed by the two modes and the pricing note in a tight three-clause structure. The parenthetical glosses on the two operation_ids are slightly verbose but each carries real disambiguating value.

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 an optional-parameter, two-mode listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back in the detailed mode and names the available operations. It omits what the bare-list payload looks like and any permission/rate context, which is minor given the read-only annotation.

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 exceeds it by supplying concrete operation_id values (es_auction_poa, de_gmbh_formation) and glossing what each produces, compensating for the absence of an enum. The country parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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+resource ('List Mandate operations') and immediately clarifies the resource is 'ready document packages an agent can order,' with two concrete operation_ids enumerated. That lets an agent distinguish it from list_actions, list_templates, and order_operation 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?

Explains the two calling modes: bare list vs. 'With operation_id returns the input JSON schema, an example input and all sources,' and hints at the follow-on path ('packages an agent can order'). It does not explicitly name the handoff to order_operation or say when filtering by country is useful, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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