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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the signal is signed, time-limited to one hour, advisory only, and that Actuary never trades. These are important behavioral traits for correct use, though it does not explain failure modes or what verification entails.

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 two tight sentences with the returned values and validity front-loaded, followed by the safety-critical caveat that verification and trading decisions remain with the caller. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return semantics: the signal values, its signed nature, its one-hour validity, and the advisory-only role. It could be more complete with explicit sibling routing or verification expectations, but it covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and already documents both id and secret, including that secret is returned by create_mandate. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource and result: the newest signed signal for a mandate, with possible values exit, watch, or hold, plus a one-hour validity window. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings such as mandate_status or gate.

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 for a held token and gives a post-call workflow: verify the signal, then let your own code decide whether to sell. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over mandate_status, gate, or verify_signal, nor does it provide exclusions.

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