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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'current' and 'held in other companies' scope, but does not discuss return shape, permissions, or limits.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The key scope distinction is placed immediately in the description.

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 read-only tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the conceptual result. However, it does not clarify the returned mandate structure or explicitly contrast with get_mandates, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 the company_number and locale parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 and resource: get current mandates held by a company in other companies. It distinguishes this from a generic mandates lookup by clarifying the outward-held scope, though it does not explicitly name the sibling get_mandates as the alternative.

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 phrase 'held by a company in other companies' implies when this tool applies versus a company's own mandates, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative such as get_mandates.

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