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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the core authorization model and the critical restriction that the agent may never withdraw, but it omits whether creation is irreversible, what permissions or signatures are required, and what side effects or identifiers are produced.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action first and then clarifies the domain meaning. There is no redundant wording, and the critical "never to withdraw" constraint is included compactly.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema creation tool, the description explains the concept and key restriction but leaves important operational context unstated, such as how limits are supplied, who may create the mandate, and what happens after creation. It is adequate but not fully complete for a financial authorization operation.

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 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ("Create a mandate") and defines what a mandate is in domain terms: a principal authorising an agent to trade within limits. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like futures_trade or futures_open, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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: setting up a mandate before an agent can trade. The description does not explicitly say when to create a mandate versus using futures_trade or futures_open, nor does it state prerequisites such as principal approval or required account state.

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