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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not obliged to restate it. The description does add genuine value by disclosing what the response contains (decision, delivery mode, last check, failures), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about staleness, error behavior, or what a 'failure' entry looks like.

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?

A single compact sentence fragment with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant item ('Current decision') is front-loaded. It is under-punctuated as a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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 with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right compensating move and largely covers completeness. The gaps are the lack of any routing signal versus mandate_events/mandate_signal and no note on what happens when the mandate does not exist or the secret is wrong.

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 coverage is 100%, with the id format ('mnd_…') and the secret's provenance ('returned by create_mandate') already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 phrase 'Current decision, delivery mode, last check and failures of a mandate' names the resource and enumerates the specific data returned, which is more specific than a restatement of the title. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a read operation. It also does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like mandate_events or mandate_signal.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as mandate_events for history or mandate_signal for state changes. The agent is left to infer that this is the 'current snapshot' tool purely from the word 'Current'.

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