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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'self-audit' which implies a read-only operation, and the URL parameter description discloses server-side fetching with SSRF guards. However, the main description does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no data storage, no modifications), output format, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity about how the tool behaves.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second provides the regulatory context. No fluff or redundancy.

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 explains the tool's purpose and regulatory focus but does not mention what the output looks like (no output schema is provided). For a compliance audit tool, an agent needs to know what the tool returns (e.g., violation list, pass/fail). It also omits mention of the tool's read-only nature as a general behavior. Overall, adequate for selection but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter explanations, including examples for text and an enum-like list for asset_type. The main description does not add parameter detail, but the schema already provides sufficient 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the exact resource ('SEC retail communications self-audit') with scope ('US-touching crypto marketing'). It lists concrete regulatory topics (FINRA Rule 2210, anti-fraud, Reg BI) that clearly distinguish it from sibling jurisdiction-specific checks like run_fca_pro_check and run_mas_pro_check.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'for US-touching crypto marketing.' This implies when to use it versus other pro checks, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use run_fca_pro_check for UK'). Still, the jurisdiction framing is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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