Get bounded authority

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.