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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the call is paid per call via x402 when payments are enabled, with a cross-reference to quantum_pricing so the agent can check terms before invoking. It does not say what happens on an unknown or expired mandate_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, with the payment caveat cleanly separated at the end. The status enumeration is dense but earns its place by telling the agent the value space. No filler or restating of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: terms, status, spend, remaining budget, and every charge and refund. The x402 payment note covers the cost concern. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown id, mandates not yet active) and any hint about volume or shape of the charge/refund list.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('qm_... id'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id format, prefix meaning, or lookup failure behavior. With full schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource framing: it returns a Quantum Mandate's terms, status, spend, remaining budget, and charge/refund history. The enumerated status values (draft, active, expired, revoked) make the returned resource concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby quantum_mandate_check, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for inspecting an existing mandate, versus quantum_mandate_request (create) and quantum_mandate_revoke (terminate). No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement names those alternatives, and the boundary with quantum_mandate_check is left to inference. The pointer to quantum_pricing is the one genuinely directive piece of guidance.

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