Verify Active Mandate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds content detail (caps, allowed payees, window, revocation, public key), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior when no active mandate exists or any edge cases, so the added behavioral context is moderate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then lists the returned components. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the responsibility of explaining return values. It enumerates the envelope contents and the public key, giving a solid overview. However, it omits details about formatting, revocation semantics, or the absence of an active mandate, leaving minor gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 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 identifies the tool as returning the active mandate envelope and Fidacy's Ed25519 public key for grant verification. It uses the specific verb 'Return' and details the resource contents, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spend_summary or get_audit_proof.

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 provides clear context by stating the purpose is 'for grant verification', which implicitly indicates when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a no-parameter read-only tool, the intended usage is evident.

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