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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: live mandates can be drawn against without further approval, emphasizing the urgency of revocation. Though it does not explicitly state that listing is read-only or non-mutating, the 'List' verb and warning provide useful context.

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: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance, and the third advises on revocation. Every sentence contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is listed, the key fields returned, the recommended usage context, and the safety implications. It also gives actionable advice, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The schema includes one parameter, 'principal', with a description already covering it (the principal address). The tool description also mentions 'principal address' but does not add extra meaning, such as format, examples, or constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, so the 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 clearly identifies the tool as listing all mandates for a principal address, specifying the returned fields (remaining budget, co-sign threshold, expiry, revocation state). This verb-resource pairing and scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like robyn_mandate_check or robyn_mandate_status, which likely target individual mandates.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before telling a user they are safe' and explains why (live mandates can be drawn on without further approval). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the directive is clear and practical.

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