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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the owner is irrevocable with no recovery, the contract is unaudited, the operation is simulated first and refused on revert, and the output is unsigned transaction data that is never signed or sent. This is exactly the kind of safety and lifecycle context an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: it defines the resource, then layers constraints and output behavior in short, purposeful sentences. Every sentence contributes unique information with no filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of an irreversible, unaudited smart-account creation flow, the description covers the essential gaps: prerequisites, irreversibility, simulation behavior, unsigned return format, and never signing or sending. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and understand the consequences.

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 100%, so both the owner and salt parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal context by tying the owner to 'the owner's own wallet' and the simulated sender; it does not elaborate on the salt's behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a mandate account', and immediately defines what a mandate account is. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like prepare_mandate_create_position or prepare_mandate_deposit by focusing on account creation itself.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is usable ('Refused while mandates aren't enabled on this server') and an important exclusion ('Existing positions can't be moved into it'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a recommended sequence, such as using this before grant-session or deposit operations.

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