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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the useful qualifier 'current,' implying a point-in-time snapshot rather than historical data. It does not disclose return shape, pagination, or authorization needs, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and its temporal scope. Brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 operation with full schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, it omits the key contextual distinction from get_held_mandates and does not clarify what a 'mandate' represents in this domain. An agent could still call it correctly but might choose the wrong sibling.

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 locale enum and company_number format are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond saying mandates are retrieved 'in a company,' which only restates that company_number identifies the target. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 in a company.' An agent can understand the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling get_held_mandates, leaving ambiguity about which mandate set this returns.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_held_mandates or get_company. The phrase 'current mandates' implies a temporal scope but does not state exclusions or selection criteria. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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