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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also hints at the return content (venues, position cap, validity) but does not address error conditions, rate limits, or what happens when the agent is invalid. For a read-only operation with no annotation support, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the read-only note and parameter explanation. Each element earns its place. The formatting is informal but readable; no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema, so the description need not cover return structure. However, it omits usage context (when to call it) and edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown agent). With only a single parameter and low complexity, this is a moderate gap but not critical.

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 must clarify the parameter. It does so by defining 'agent' as 'public agent identifier (address / DID / ERC-8004 ref)', which adds meaningful type context beyond the schema's bare 'Agent' string field. This is a clear improvement over the schema alone.

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 specific resource (committed AAE mandate) for an agent, with qualifying details (venues, position cap, validity). It distinguishes from siblings like moltproof_evidence or moltproof_registry by naming 'mandate' explicitly. However, 'AAE' is cryptic and may not be self-explanatory to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or conditions such as 'use moltproof_verify for verification'. The only context is the resource it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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