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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute two real traits - it is read-only and it sorts NO_MANDATE/NEEDS_REVIEW entries lower - but it says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or completeness of the listing.

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 short sentences with the resource description front-loaded and no filler. The fragmentary style is slightly terse for a domain-specific term like 'committed mandates', but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. However, the description does not clarify the domain terms or how this registry relates to its moltproof_registry sibling, leaving ambiguity about which registry tool to call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is also fully covered. Baseline of 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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: agents with committed mandates and their current verdict, ranked by mandate status. That is clear enough to know what is returned, but the verb is implicit (list/query) and there is no differentiation from the sibling moltproof_registry, which appears to cover similar ground.

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 states 'Read-only' and a ranking preference ('Ranks NO_MANDATE / NEEDS_REVIEW lower'), but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus molcheck_mandate, molcheck_verdict, or moltproof_registry. Usage is only implied by the returned content.

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