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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the data returned, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, whether it makes external calls (e.g., for live peg data), or any potential limitations. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the key data areas. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 gives a solid sense of the tool's scope by enumerating multiple data categories (DTI, message references, MiCA status, XRPL details, live peg data), which is valuable without an output schema. However, it lacks detail on response structure, error handling, or timing, leaving a slight gap.

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 already covers the parameter fully with a description of the symbol field and allowed values (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic guidance about the parameter beyond what is in the schema.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete ISO 20022 integration profile for a stablecoin'). It enumerates specific data components (DTI, message references, settlement networks, etc.), which distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like dti_lookup or mica_cross_check.

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 establishes clear context for using the tool when a comprehensive profile is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'complete profile' implies differentiation from single-aspect tools, but without explicit guidance.

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