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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('List') but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., empty results). The description is minimal and leaves behavioral aspects largely unspecified.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is concise and to the point, though its brevity sacrifices detail for clarity.

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?

Given the 4-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits explanations for half the parameters and provides no information about the return format or any constraints. An agent would likely need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 description explicitly mentions only two of the four parameters: userId and agentInstanceId. It does not explain the purpose or allowed values for 'portal' and 'status', which are also in the schema. This incomplete coverage fails to clarify the role of each parameter, especially since none have descriptions in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('capital mandates'), and the primary scope ('for a userId'). It also mentions an optional filter by agentInstanceId, making the core purpose evident. However, it does not elaborate on what 'capital mandates' entails, which could be ambiguous in some contexts.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools listed. It merely states what it does without contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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