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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals data provenance (read from ESMA's published CSVs, kept as dated snapshots) and that entries carry date, source file and checksum, but it omits whether results are ordered, what an empty window returns, staleness/latency, or any access requirements. Good provenance context, incomplete operational context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scope before elaborating. The nested parenthetical about the interim register and non-compliant list is dense but each clause carries real information; only slight restructuring would improve readability.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description does substantial work by inventorying what each entry contains (date, ESMA source file, snapshot checksum), which substitutes for the absent return schema. The remaining gap is result ordering and empty-window behavior.

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 100% and the single 'days' parameter is already documented with default and max in the schema. The description's 'last N days' phrasing is consistent but adds no new constraint or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return the last N days of NorthPoint's signal feed') and then enumerates exactly what the feed contains: ESMA MiCA CASP interim-register additions/removals, the non-compliant entities list, and corrections in NorthPoint's regulations change record. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from search_signals and list_rule_changes without opening the schema.

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 'last N days' framing implies a recency-driven use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_signals or list_rule_changes, nor does it name any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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