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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the condition and regulatory context but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or how the issuer is derived from token_symbol. Partially transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the regulation, threshold, and purpose with no unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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 one-parameter predicate, it gives the core criterion but omits return value details and edge cases (e.g., unknown token, missing data). With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 coverage for token_symbol is 100% and includes its own description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the implicit relationship between token_symbol and the issuer.

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?

Description clearly states a specific check ('checks if issuer exceeds €5B reserve threshold') with a specific regulation (MiCA Art. 45/58) and authority (EBA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mica_status or mica_full_pack, which are broader.

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 implies usage for assessing issuer significance under EBA oversight but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools. An agent can infer when to use it, but it lacks direct guidance.

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