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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a topical scope. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what output format is returned, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is compact and front-loads the most relevant regulatory references.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize behavior. It does not state what action the tool performs or what the response represents, though the single-parameter schema reduces complexity.

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 already documents the single parameter token_symbol with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific compliance artifacts (recovery plans, redemption plans, annual audit status) under MiCA Articles 29/30/55, giving the tool a clear regulatory scope that distinguishes it from generic siblings like mica_status. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists,' so the action remains implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_preflight, mica_status, or significant_issuer. The topic is implied but no exclusions or alternative references are offered.

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