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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful traits like 'reusable' and 'owner-signed'. However, it does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or what happens after registration.

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 single sentence is efficient, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. It could include more useful detail without becoming bloated, but the current structure is clean 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?

With one open object parameter and no output schema, an agent needs more context about accepted mandate structure, return behavior, and side effects. The description covers only the basic intent and leaves critical calling details unspecified.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions and coverage is 0%, while the description only says the parameter is an owner-signed mandate. It does not explain required fields, signature format, or valid values for the open additionalProperties object.

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 names a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('reusable owner-signed mandate'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like revoke_owner_mandate, but the action is sufficiently distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling revoke_owner_mandate suggests an opposite operation, but the description leaves that selection entirely to inference.

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