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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is offline and read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also clarifies the signature is optional. However, it does not mention error behavior or what happens when verification fails, but the read-only disclosure is significant.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the offline/read-only note and a clean argument list. It is efficient with no redundant filler, though it repeats 'public' for multiple parameters, which is minor.

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 has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The input parameters are well explained, and the offline/read-only context is given. However, it does not specify expected input formats (e.g., structure of mandate or actions) or any error conditions, and it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling verify tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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%, but the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'agent' as public identifier, 'mandate' as the public AAE Verifiable Credential, 'actions' as already-decoded on-chain actions, and 'signature' as optional prior signature. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 verb ('recompute', 'check') and resource ('verdict', 'signature'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explicitly notes it's offline and read-only, which distinguishes it from sibling verify tools that may fetch external data.

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 description implies usage for verification without external fetching ('offline and read-only'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. Given the many sibling verify tools (e.g., moltguard_credential_verify, moltrust_verify), more explicit guidance would improve selection accuracy.

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