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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It does disclose that the operation is live, uses a specific pack, and updates Ampel, which are important behavioral traits. However, it omits details about permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or what the caller receives, leaving a partial transparency picture.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences that convey the core action, method, scope, and side effect without any filler. Every word contributes useful information.

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 covers the main purpose and side effect, but with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the return value, prerequisites, or expected result format. It is adequately informative for a simple action but not fully complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, providing clear meanings for entity_id and token_symbol. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Run LIVE MiCA assessment'), the resource ('FeedOracle mica_full_pack'), and the scope ('Evaluates 18 checks, updates Ampel'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like assess_entity by focusing on tokens, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use for token-level MiCA assessments and mentions 'LIVE', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when to use assess_entity or other sibling tools, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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