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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the useful fact that the status is cross-referenced with ESMA/EBA registers, which implies an external data source. However, it does not mention whether the data is real-time or cached, what happens for unsupported tokens, or any rate limits or side effects. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple read-only status tool.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence fragment that conveys the core purpose and a key detail (cross-referencing). Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary fluff or filler is present.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what status values are returned (e.g., 'authorized', 'pending', 'not authorized') or how errors are handled. For a status-checking tool, this is a notable omission but not a fatal one.

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 provides full coverage of the token_symbol parameter with an example and description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool's resource as the MiCA EU authorization status for a token, with the cross-referencing detail adding specificity. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', making it slightly less direct than a full command-style description. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing narrowly on authorization status, though it does not name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mica_full_pack or significant_issuer. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context clues about which tool is appropriate for a given scenario. The only implied usage is for checking MiCA status, but that is not explicit.

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