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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the tool requires a human-guarantor-configured Bearer token in the MCP client header, and tokens must never be passed as arguments. That auth constraint is the main failure mode for this call and is disclosed. It does not describe rate limits or response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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 return payload, then labeled 'When to use', 'Notes', and an example. Tight and skimmable; the explicit empty-argument example is marginally redundant for a zero-param tool but costs little.

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 must carry the return semantics, and it does by naming the three returned items (mandate, allowed places, daily quotas). It stops short of describing structure or freshness of quota counts, so not a full 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Example arguments: {}', making it unambiguous that the call takes no arguments, which is the only parameter-level meaning available.

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 set: returns the mandate, allowed places, and remaining daily quotas for the authenticated agent. The scope (authenticated agent) distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like revoke_my_mandate or read_ledger.

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?

Explicit 'When to use: Use before writing, to check what you may do today' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to call it, but for a pre-flight check the context is sufficient.

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