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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the digest binds the mandate, transfer, and amount, and that approvals cannot be reused. However, it lacks explicit statement about whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, and does not describe error/refusal behavior beyond the digest-presentation advice.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by two critical caveats. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is tight with no redundancy.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a check tool: when to use, what it returns (digest), and how to handle a common refusal. It does not elaborate on error conditions or edge cases, but it is adequate for its complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains all three parameters by stating the digest binds the mandate (mandateId), the transfer (transferId), and the amount (amount). This adds semantic meaning beyond bare parameter names, though it does not detail formats or units.

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 clearly states it checks whether a specific spend requires principal approval and retrieves the exact digest to sign. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the co-sign threshold context and the binding nature of the digest to mandate, transfer, and amount.

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 explicitly states the tool applies to mandates with a co-sign threshold and provides guidance for the refused-large-spend scenario: present the digest rather than splitting the spend. It does not name alternative tools but gives clear contextual when-to-use guidance.

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