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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful traits: it is 'fail-closed' and 'cannot sign, send or activate a mandate,' signaling a non-committal preparation step that respects eligibility review. It omits whether any state is persisted, what permissions are required, and what happens to unmatched or incomplete input, so it is partial rather than complete.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety constraint. No filler, though 'fail-closed' and 'draft view' are jargon that slightly obscure rather than clarify.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and three opaque nested parameters mean the description should do far more work. It does not explain required inputs or the returned artifact, leaving the agent unable to invoke this correctly beyond the conceptual intent.

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 0% and three nested parameters (match, evidence, commission_terms) are entirely undocumented. The description mentions none of them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. An agent has no idea what shape 'match' or 'evidence' should take.

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 states a verb ('prepare') and a resource ('commission mandate draft'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'draft view' is ambiguous about whether this produces a read-only preview or a persisted draft, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_commission_mandate. Purpose is implied but not sharply defined.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as submit_commission_mandate. The statement about 'authorized eligibility review' is a constraint, not usage guidance. The agent must infer when this preparation step is called versus its submission counterpart.

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