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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, yet the description adds genuine extra context: every field carries its source page and a signature (kid allooloo-eco-2026-10), plus a node status. That provenance/signing detail is behavioral information not available in the annotations, though caching or freshness behavior is unstated.

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 resource is front-loaded, but the rest is a single dense run-on cataloguing a dozen fields plus a signing key identifier, which is harder to parse than a structured list. Most content is relevant, but the signing kid is a fine detail that slightly clutters the core message.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the fields (regulator, exchanges, deadlines, ISIN prefix, LEI, calendar, halts page, node status). For a single-parameter read tool that is largely complete, though it omits error behavior for an unknown market code.

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 is 100% and the market parameter is fully described in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies a single-market scope via 'of one market (49)' and adds no format or syntax detail 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 a specific resource (the Electronic Compliance Object for one market) and enumerates its contents, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_signal or resolve_issuer, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_signal, list_nodes, or resolve_issuer, and no prerequisites such as needing a market code first. Usage must be guessed from the resource name alone.

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