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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the 'deterministic' nature of the decision and reiterates that it cannot create or modify authority, providing context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, with the core action and resource in the first sentence and a clarifying limitation in the second. No wasted words, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 and zero parameter coverage, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It explains the purpose but omits parameter semantics and return value expectations, leaving critical gaps for a tool with two flexible object inputs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented object parameters. It vaguely mentions 'decision or permit' but does not clarify which parameter maps to which concept or how they relate. This leaves the agent guessing about how to populate the parameters.

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 (Explain) and resource (VAGP authority decision or permit). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like resolve or verify by focusing on explanation, and explicitly notes it is informational only, which separates it from mutation-capable tools.

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 implies usage by saying it is informational only and cannot create or modify authority, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings. There is no 'when to use' guidance beyond that hint.

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

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description redundantly says 'Read-only'. It adds the context that data comes from 'server-side trusted state', which is mildly informative. However, it doesn't disclose any other traits like required permissions, error behavior, or what happens if agentId is invalid.

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 sentence plus 'Read-only', which is concise and front-loaded with the primary function. No unnecessary information is included.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no output schema means the return format is unspecified, and the term 'Agent DNA' is not explained. Given the lack of usage guidance and parameter clarification, the description is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 schema has no description for agentId, and the tool description also fails to explain what agentId represents or how it should be formatted. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('trusted Agent DNA state and fingerprint information'), distinguishing it from generic operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_authority or get_mandate, and 'Agent DNA' is not defined in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only states what it does and that it's read-only, without mentioning conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the title and resource name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds a small behavioral detail: the authority is 'current' and 'bounded', which gives more context than the annotations alone. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 very short and front-loads the main function. The only redundancy is 'Read-only', which repeats the annotation, but it is harmless and does not bloat the description.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools in a specialized authorization domain, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return shape, the meaning of evaluationTime, or how this tool relates to get_mandate and verify_permit, so an agent may struggle to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only loosely references 'agent/action', aligning with agentId and action, but says nothing about resourceId or evaluationTime, leaving much of the input semantics unexplained.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Return current bounded authority') and adds a scoping context ('relevant to a trusted registered agent/action'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_mandate, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mandate, explain, or verify_permit. The only contextual hint is 'trusted registered agent/action', which implies a condition but never states it as a usage rule.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' line merely repeats that annotation. It adds only minimal context ('server-side trusted'), but does not contradict any annotation and the safety profile is already fully covered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the basic purpose or safety framing.

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 simple read-only tool with two self-explanatory parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or any mention of return shape or edge cases, an agent has limited information about what to expect after invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain what agentId and mandateId mean and whether one or both are required. It does not mention either parameter or their relationship, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('server-side trusted mandate information'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_authority or get_agent_dna, but the resource name is specific enough to be understood.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use get_mandate versus siblings such as resolve, explain, or verify_permit. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.

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

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

The description explicitly states that calling this tool does not execute the protected action, which implies a read-only behavior. However, the annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which indicates the tool is not read-only per the annotation. This is a direct contradiction. The description also fails to disclose any other behavioral traits, such as side effects or state changes. The contradiction alone necessitates a score of 1, as per the rules.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a safety note. However, it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no other documentation. The brevity is acceptable, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is neither bloated nor elegantly structured; it is simply short.

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?

The description is drastically incomplete for a tool with six parameters, three required, and no output schema. It provides no information about return values, parameter formats, possible error conditions, or how to construct inputs. The sibling set includes tools that seem related (e.g., verify_permit), yet the description does not clarify the distinction. Additionally, the contradiction with annotations further undermines completeness. The agent would have to rely entirely on parameter names and guesswork.

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?

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining the six parameters. Yet it mentions none of them—no explanation of agentId, action, resourceId, requestId, evaluationTime, or parametersDigest. It provides zero semantic context for any parameter, leaving the agent to guess from names alone. This is a significant gap in a tool with three required parameters.

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's purpose: determining whether an agent is currently authorized for a specific action. It uses a specific verb ('Determine') and resource ('authorization'), and the phrase 'does not execute the protected action' adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like verimand.verify_permit or verimand.get_authority, which might have overlapping roles. The clarity is good but lacks a comparative note.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to know if an agent is authorized), but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. It barely hints that calling this tool is safe (non-executing), which is a mild usage hint, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description cannot rely on the tool being read-only. The explicit statement that it does not execute protected actions adds useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose verification failure behavior, return values, or any side effects.

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 short sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and a valuable clarification second. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or repetition of the title.

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 high parameter complexity (nested required object), zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It omits permit shape, time semantics, idempotency behavior, and sibling routing, so an agent would need external knowledge to call this tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description names no parameters. The required nested 'permit' object has no documented structure, and evaluationTime and idempotencyKey are not explained anywhere, leaving the agent without enough information to construct valid input.

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-resource pair (verify an existing VAGP execution permit) and adds scope ('against current authority evidence'), with a clear negative ('does not execute protected actions'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as resolve or explain, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to check an existing permit rather than perform the protected action. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions and no mention of alternative sibling tools, so an agent must infer the decision boundary.

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