Get mandate

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.