mandate_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the tool as read-only and enumerates the output fields, giving the agent confidence that no side effects occur. It doesn't mention error cases or authorization, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 immediately states the action ('Read') followed by concise detail on what is returned. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains the purpose and the key fields of the result. It could mention whether the returned data is live or cached, but this is not essential for a simple status-read tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'mandateId' with the description 'the mandate to inspect'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool reads a mandate's current state, listing specific data elements returned (committed spend, reserved, remaining budget, per-chain breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_mandate, pay, and revoke_mandate, which imply write or state-changing operations.

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 uses 'Read' and specifies what data is retrieved, making it clear this tool is for inspection rather than modification. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, the context from sibling names and the read-oriented wording provide clear usage context.

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