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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read scoped to the caller's owner, which is useful, but it says nothing about what happens when no mandates exist, whether results are paginated or identity-scoped, or whether mandates are enforced elsewhere in the toolset.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a tight colon list of what comes back. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it names four of them: permitted actions, categories, monthly commitment ceiling, and expiry. Missing are mandate identity, per-mandate scoping, and empty-result behavior, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is largely adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The parenthetical action names are arguably return-value semantics rather than parameter semantics, but they add no confusion.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the mandates your owner has issued to you") and then enumerates the fields returned (actions, categories, monthly ceiling, expiry). That is far more specific than the bare name mandate.get, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is how you discover what you are permitted to do, but the description never says when to call it versus the action tools (quote.request, order.draft, availability.check) or that it should be consulted before attempting those actions. No when-not guidance either.

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