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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — that it is a public (non-auth-gated) read and that it is free — plus the returned field set, but it does not disclose any permission or rate-limit nuances beyond that.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the content scope and the 'Free' qualifier. No wasted words and nothing buried.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return payload, which compensates for the missing output schema. It is essentially complete, with only the sibling-routing detail (check vs list vs get) left implicit.

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% for the single mandate_id parameter, so the schema already documents the 'mdt_... ID' format. The description adds no further parameter syntax or meaning, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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+resource ('Get a mandate') and enumerates exactly what a public mandate view contains (terms, status, signature, budget, recent spends). It is clear what the tool does, but it only implicitly separates itself from siblings like mandate_check or mandate_list via the word 'view' rather than naming them.

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 phrase 'Public view of a mandate' implies a by-ID read of an existing mandate, which is adequate implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus mandate_check (verify) or mandate_list (enumerate), so an agent must infer the routing.

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