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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It describes a read-only scanning action but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, data sources, or output format. The term 'prohibited' indicates a compliance check but adds no behavioral detail.

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, beginning with the legal frame and ending with the action. It is exceptionally concise with no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Well-structured for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the basic function but lacks return value specification and usage nuance. Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent needing to interpret the output or understand edge cases.

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 one parameter, token_symbol, with a description 'Token symbol' (100% coverage). The description adds domain context by referencing issuer-native mechanisms, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, 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 'scans for issuer-native yield mechanisms (prohibited)' with a specific legal reference to MiCA Art. 23/52. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools. However, it does not specify what the scan returns (e.g., boolean, risk score, report), so purpose is clear but not fully complete.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'scans for issuer-native yield mechanisms' implies its use for checking tokens for prohibited yield, but there are no exclusions or mentions of overlapping tools like compliance_preflight or mica_full_pack. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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