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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (verdict, per-rule analysis, rewrite suggestions) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects. The term 'self-audit' implies analysis only, but explicit disclosure is lacking.

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 main action. It efficiently covers scope (rules count, regulatory references) and output without extraneous wording.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (verdict, per-rule analysis, rewrite suggestions) and defines the scope (Title II–IV, ESMA guidance). This is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for url, text, and asset_type. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already covers the semantics, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action: 'Run the full MiCA (EU cryptoasset marketing) self-audit on a marketing asset.' It clearly identifies the regulatory scope (MiCA, EU cryptoasset marketing) and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the specific regime and asset type.

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 for MiCA self-audits on marketing assets, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like run_fca_pro_check or run_gdpr_pro_check, so it misses explicit exclusions.

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