Issue a mandate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the mandate is owner-signed, that a file path is returned for gateway configuration, and that approval_above causes spends to wait for async human approval. It omits whether it overwrites an existing mandate, what owner signing authority is required, and whether issuance is idempotent.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then the cap model, then the operational follow-up step. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 9 parameters, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does meaningful work (units, tiers, approval, validity) but still leaves several parameters unexplained and does not cover auth/prerequisite or replacement behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps the cap tiers (per transaction / day / task / total) and stresses 'WHOLE currency units', which is critical numeric semantics not present in the schema. It also introduces the approval threshold and validity window. It leaves 'purpose' and 'currency' semantics unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Issue an owner-signed mandate (SD-JWT VC) for an agent') and enumerates the content of the mandate: spend caps, approval threshold, validity window. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling issuance tools like mandare_issue_passport and mandare_issue_token, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

It provides a downstream usage step ('point the gateway at it (MANDARE_MANDATE_PATH)'), which is genuinely helpful operational context, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus mandare_issue_token or mandare_issue_passport, nor any prerequisites such as needing an agent passport first.

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