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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output ('verdict + per-rule analysis + rewrite suggestions') and scope (~25 rules, specific regulations), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or that it performs server-side fetching without persisting data. It adds some useful context but leaves safety profile implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Run'), and every sentence provides substantive value: scope, legal references, and return format. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 covers the tool's purpose, legal framework, and return payload in enough detail for an audit tool with 3 well-defined parameters. It lacks mention of rate limits, authentication, or runtime expectations, but these are less critical for a straightforward compliance-analysis tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of return components.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about the audit's legal scope and output, but does not provide additional meaning for the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already states. No compensation for a low-coverage situation is needed.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Run the full FCA UK financial-promotions self-audit for cryptoasset marketing'. It lists concrete regulatory references (Section 21 FSMA, COBS 4.12A, PERG 8) and distinguishes from sibling tools like run_mas_pro_check or run_sec_pro_check by explicitly naming the FCA UK jurisdiction and cryptoasset scope.

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 clear context (UK FCA financial-promotions audit for cryptoassets) and implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions like 'use this for FCA matters, not for MAS/SEC'. The regulatory specificity effectively signals the intended use case, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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