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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists output content. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, may aggregate multiple data sources, or any performance or authentication requirements. This leaves the agent without critical operational context.

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, front-loaded sentence that succinctly captures the tool's purpose and content. Every listed item adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 adequately communicates the tool's scope by listing four key data categories, which helps the agent select it appropriately. However, without an output schema or annotations, it fails to describe the output structure, whether it is a summary or detailed view, or any limitations. This is a clear gap for a no-param tool relying solely on the description.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to add. Following the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Full MiCA market status' and lists four specific content areas (peg alerts, significant issuers, interest violations, stale audits). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like peg_deviation or interest_check, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 such as mica_status or mica_full_pack. The description implies comprehensiveness but does not state scenarios, exclusions, or when a more specific tool would be appropriate.

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