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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: a cost of 0.004 USDC, determinism, evidence-bounded behavior, and signed output. It also discloses a limitation (no unsupported AP2 production authorization). No contradiction with 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 short but structurally awkward. The semicolon after 'authorization.' creates a fragment, and '0.004 USDC. Deterministic, evidence-bounded and signed.' are separate staccato phrases. While concise, the flow hinders readability and could confuse an agent parsing the sentence.

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 is low-complexity with zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, so the description need not cover return values or parameter details. It provides cost, determinism, evidence-boundedness, signing, and a scope limitation, which together are reasonably complete for invocation.

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 named parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema allows additional properties with minProperties 1, but the description does not need to explain parameter semantics for a tool with no defined params.

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 ('map') and resource ('mandate fields') with a clear purpose ('for review'). The qualifier 'without advertising unsupported AP2 production authorization' clarifies scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as mandate_reserve or mcp_a2a_task_bridge, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of sibling tools, conditions, or exclusions. The phrase 'for review' weakly implies a review context, but that is not sufficient to guide an agent's tool selection.

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