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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is free with no x402 payment, it is a POST despite being a read, and halt cancels pending execution at the broker. The treasury-allowlist and registrar-timestamp sentences are more domain color than behavior of this call.

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 core purpose and the payment/free fact are front-loaded, which is good, but several sentences (treasury caps and two-principal approval, registrar timestamps and chain fingerprints) describe the surrounding mandate system rather than this read call and dilute the signal.

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 no output schema, the description should say roughly what a status response contains beyond the status enum; it does not. The enumerated status values partially compensate, and annotations cover the safety profile, but the return shape and fingerprint semantics remain gaps.

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% — neither mandate_id nor fingerprint has any documented meaning or format in the schema. The description's phrase 'for an exact version' hints that the pair identifies a version but never explains what fingerprint is, whether it is optional, or that both are 64-char hex.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('status') and enumerates the possible values (live, halted, revoked, expired, replaced) for an exact version. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side siblings (mandate-issue, mandate-amend, mandate-halt, mandate-revoke) by the payment-rail contrast, though it never explicitly says 'use mandate-halt to change status'.

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 routes the agent to /api/mandate-contract for units, signing formats and approval requirements, and notes that status/halt/revoke carry no payment requirement — useful contrast. But it never states when to call this versus mandate-halt or mandate-revoke, nor what prerequisite (a known mandate_id and version) is needed before calling.

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