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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose 'Read-only,' plus the semantic content of the returned mandate. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or failure modes, which is a gap, but the read-only declaration plus data-shape disclosure is meaningful context.

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?

Front-loaded with the deprecation notice, followed by a one-line purpose and a short Args block. Efficient, though the docstring-style 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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 values need not be described, and the deprecation routing plus read-only note plus identifier formats cover what an agent needs to call this correctly. Minor omission of any auth or error context keeps it short of perfect.

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% for the single 'agent' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does by defining the accepted identifier formats ('address / DID / ERC-8004 ref'), which is real value beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 the exact resource ('the committed AAE mandate for an agent') and enumerates its contents (venues, position cap, validity), so the agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It also explicitly identifies itself as a deprecated alias and points to the replacement sibling molcheck_mandate, making it trivially distinguishable from that sibling.

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 an unambiguous when-not rule: 'Deprecated alias of molcheck_mandate; use that name.' The alternative tool is named and the condition that selects it is explicit, leaving no inference required.

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