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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the return value (sign_url), the downstream human action, that signing is free with no transaction, that nothing can be spent pre-signature, and the API-key requirement — exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return value, the safety consequence, and the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a stateful signing flow, the description supplies the missing pieces: what it returns (sign_url), what the human must do, that the operation is non-committal until signed, and the credential required. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the mandate terms (budget, per-payment cap, payees, expiry) in conceptual terms but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema supplies, 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?

States a specific verb and resource — drafting a Privi Mandate that authorizes agent spending — and immediately names its distinguishing content (budget, per-payment cap, payees, expiry). An agent can tell this apart from mandate_spend, mandate_get, or mandate_revoke without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: this is the prerequisite step, and 'Nothing can be spent until they sign' implies the ordering relative to mandate_spend. It also states the auth prerequisite (organization API key). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when *not* to use it, so it falls just below the top band.

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