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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals that the tool records an introduction tied to a mandate, but does not disclose whether it validates the mandate's status, what side effects occur, idempotency, permissions, or failure behavior. The verb 'Record' implies a write operation, but little else is revealed.

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 description is a single compact sentence with no filler and the primary subject front-loaded. It is easy to read quickly, though its brevity leaves out important context that could have been included without much extra length.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves referral_code unexplained, does not clarify behavior when the mandate is not active or verified, and provides no indication of return values or error handling. The core purpose is stated, but the tool contract is incomplete.

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%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining all four parameters. It loosely maps 'Buyer' to buyer_id, 'Supplier' to supplier_id, and 'mandate' to mandate_id, but it never addresses referral_code or clarifies how the parameters relate to each other. This is minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 action ('Record') on a clearly defined event type ('Buyer-Supplier introduction') with an explicit condition ('under an active verified mandate'). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like record_commission_event by the event described, though it does not name or differentiate a sibling explicitly.

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 only usage guidance is the phrase 'under an active verified mandate,' which implies a prerequisite but provides no direction on when to use this tool versus record_commission_event or submit_commission_mandate. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which alternative applies to related workflows.

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