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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the api:read scope requirement, the default 'all' filter, the restriction to self-created and confirmed items, and the edit-lineage rule that an active saved Gambit is never edited in place. It omits any pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Purpose and filter semantics are front-loaded, which is good, but the long mid-sentence catalog of returned fields is a dense run-on that is hard to scan. Because there is no output schema the field inventory earns some of its place, but it could be structured far more cleanly.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (id, status vs effective_status, policy_delta, lineage fields, app_url). The remaining gaps are pagination/limits and the Gambit-vs-mandate distinction against list_gambits.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it names every enum value (active | draft | paused | superseded | all) and states the default 'all'. That is exactly the semantics an agent needs to choose a filter value.

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 makes clear this returns the caller's own saved Gambits/mandates, and it explicitly narrows scope with 'Only saved Gambits you created and confirmed are listed.' That scope statement separates it from the broader catalog concepts in siblings like list_gambits, though the distinction between 'Gambits' and 'mandates' is never spelled out for an agent that sees both list_gambits and list_mandates.

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?

It gives concrete routing: pass the returned id as mandate_id to get_mandate, and use get_mandate_activity for 'what they found.' It also documents the status filter's allowed values and default. It does not say when to prefer list_gambits over list_mandates, which is the one obvious sibling ambiguity left unaddressed.

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