validate_mandate_expiry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the server never reads the clock, so results depend entirely on the caller-supplied now_timestamp, making it a pure deterministic function.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its units, then the key semantic constraint, then the return value. No 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?

For a pure two-parameter comparison tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: units, comparison direction, clock source, and return field.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by clarifying that now_timestamp is caller-supplied (not server clock) and by defining the comparison direction (valid while now < expiration), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource (check a mandate's expiry) and pins down the exact mechanism (unix-epoch seconds comparison). It is clearly narrower than the sibling check_mandate, but it never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 explains the comparison semantics ('valid while now is before expiration') which implies when the tool applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention check_mandate as the alternative for a fuller mandate inspection.

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