Validate a mandate (offline)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns a normalized mandate (actions deduplicated, counterparties and payment instruments normalized) and rejects card numbers and malformed fields with a reason — useful for predicting success/failure 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key constraint ('Free and offline'), then purpose and return/refusal behavior. No filler, though the normalization detail is packed densely into one clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it states the mandate is returned normalized and that errors include a reason. For a one-parameter, read-only validation tool this is largely sufficient, missing only what a failure reason looks like structurally.

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?

There is a single parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema itself enumerates the mandate fields (actions, max_per_operation, currencies, counterparties, etc.). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('checks a mandate against the KYA schema') and adds scope detail: pre-registration validation plus normalization. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling kya_check_mandate, so an agent could still hesitate between the two.

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?

'before registering an agent with it' implies the workflow position (pre-registration gate), and 'free and offline' hints at a distinction from the online kya_verify family. But no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, and the kya_check_mandate overlap is left unresolved.

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