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

With no annotations, the description's only behavioral disclosure is the verb 'Lister', which clearly indicates a read-only operation. It does not state whether revocation votes are included in the same response, whether pagination or authentication applies, or what the result format is, but the low-risk read-only nature is reasonably clear.

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 that names the action and the resources with no filler. Every word contributes to the basic understanding of what the tool does.

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 zero-parameter list tool this is minimally viable, but the missing scope (caller-specific vs. global mandates) and the lack of any statement about the return content leave gaps. Since there is no output schema or annotations, a slightly fuller description would meaningfully improve invocation confidence.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Lister' (list), and names three concrete resources: mandates, limited powers, and revocation votes. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_elections and list_proposals, though the exact scope (global vs. caller-specific mandates) remains ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no note about whether it returns the caller's own mandates or all mandates. The agent must infer usage from the name and the list of sibling tools.

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