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

Annotations only supply generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the role/key gating for every action, the fact that a developer 'add' merely creates a suggestion that must later be confirmed, and that the gate enforces these preferences in every cycle. This is exactly the auth and state-transition context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Content is dense and mostly earns its place, but it is delivered as a run-on clause chain with parenthetical role caveats that make it hard to parse at a glance. The trailing 'Same as /api/v1/...' endpoint cross-reference is of marginal use to an agent and could be dropped.

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 10-parameter, four-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the action model, credential requirements, and kind-to-field mappings well. It omits what 'list' returns and how the confirmed-vs-suggested state is represented, which an agent would benefit from knowing given there is no output schema.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage across 10 params, the description compensates by tying enum kinds to their fields: avoid-strategy with an optional 'until' date, min-value 'for a strategy' (strategy + amount_usd), and avoid-alternative. It leaves note, alternative_id, and the id params to the schema, so it adds substantive but partial meaning.

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 resource ('an advisor's standing preferences') and enumerates the four actions (list, add, confirm, remove) with their semantics, so an agent knows this is the preferences-manipulation tool for a mandate. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like get_mandate or list_mandates, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It gives explicit per-action conditions: 'list (any role)', 'add (an approver or owner key confirms it at once, a developer key only suggests it)', 'confirm a suggestion (approver or owner)', 'remove (a suggestion: developer and up; a confirmed preference: approver or owner)'. That is real guidance on when each action applies and under what credential, though it never says when to prefer this tool over a sibling.

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