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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the audit breadth (28 rules, five regimes) and, importantly, what comes back — a per-market verdict, per-rule analysis, and concrete rewrites — which matters since no output schema exists. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor anything about cost, latency, or the SSRF-guarded fetch behavior that the schema mentions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the audit scope and rule count before the surface list and return values. Dense but nearly every clause (jurisdictions, rule count, surfaces, outputs) carries information an agent needs; the em-dash jurisdiction roll-call is the only part that runs long.

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 broad multi-regime audit with three inputs and no output schema, the description covers scope, rule count, applicable assets, and return shape — enough to call it correctly. The gaps are the url-vs-text requirement and any indication of how this relates to the narrower per-jurisdiction check tools.

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%, so the parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only partial meaning — its surface list (airdrop/points page, staking copy, launch deck, KOL brief) only loosely maps to the asset_type enum values (landing_page | ad | email | x_post | kol_contract | whitepaper | press_release), and it never clarifies that at least one of url or text must be supplied despite zero required parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Run the full TGE / token-launch marketing readiness audit (28 rules)' — and names the exact jurisdictions covered (MiCA offer-to-public + Article 7, FCA, SEC/Howey, MAS, VARA). The phrase 'in one multi-jurisdiction pass' implicitly separates it from the single-jurisdiction siblings like run_mica_pro_check and run_fca_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?

It gives a clear use context via the enumerated launch surfaces (landing page, airdrop/points page, staking copy, announcement thread, launch deck, KOL brief) and the TGE/token-launch framing. It never explicitly says when NOT to use it — e.g. 'for a single market, use run_mica_pro_check instead' — so the routing decision against the per-jurisdiction siblings is left to inference.

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