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

With readOnlyHint: false, the annotation indicates a write operation, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description only adds that the mandate is 'signed' and does not disclose side effects, permissions, persistence, or return behavior. It fails to explain the consequences of creating a mandate or any required configuration.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action and uses a colon to succinctly list the mandate's components. Every word adds meaning, with no redundancy or excess detail.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, while annotations only provide readOnlyHint. The description gives a high-level overview but omits critical contextual details like return values, error scenarios, lifecycle implications, or dependencies. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional information.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'agent/user/server scope, budget, validity window, and tool constraints' which maps to some fields (scope, user_id, agent_id, server_id, budget_limit, valid_until, constraints) but omits several (metadata, signature, requires_human_approval). It does not provide format, semantics, or relationships, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a Verify Mandate: signed delegated authority...' It specifies the verb (Create), the resource (Verify Mandate), and the key components (scope, budget, validity, constraints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on mandate creation.

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 implies usage by defining what a mandate is, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it. Given the context, an agent could infer it's for authorizing delegation, but the guidance is not explicit.

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