AP2 AML Mandate Builder

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false. The description adds valuable context: client-side execution, zero PII, zero network, and that inputs are applied via AIN Bridge prefill. No contradictions.

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 verbose and contains redundancy (e.g., 'Browser-based, client-side only' repeated, 'Zero PII' repeated). It also includes a typo ('payment sy'). Could be more concise and better 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and mechanism (client-side, zero PII) but lacks details on the output format (Policy Mandate JSON structure) and what 'Cat-12' refers to. Without an output schema, more clarity on return value would improve completeness.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'inputs', and the description adds meaning by explaining it is a map of tool input element IDs to values, applied via AIN Bridge prefill. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 translates AML/BSA controls, TM rules, and customer risk policy into a structured Policy Mandate JSON for agentic payment systems. It identifies the tool as an anchor tool for Cat-12, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_google_ap2_mandate'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is an anchor tool for Cat-12 and provides a link for interactive use, but does not specify use cases or exclusion criteria relative to sibling tools.

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