Verify an action against an Agent Mandate

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

The description explicitly states 'does not execute the action or mutate any account,' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. This reinforces the non-destructive nature and adds clarity beyond the annotation, though the annotation already covers the core 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant information. It directly states the purpose and a key behavioral trait, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of the nested objects (action, actions, mandate) and the existence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits any explanation of parameter structure, expected input formats, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. While 'mandate' is mentioned as 'signed mandate', the structure of 'action', 'actions', and 'mandate' objects is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

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 tool's function: verify action facts against a signed mandate. The verb 'verify' and the specific objects 'action facts' and 'mandate' make the purpose unambiguous, even without sibling tools to differentiate.

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 implies usage for verification tasks ('Verification only'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tools are present, the lack of explicit alternatives is less critical, but the guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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