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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output format (RED/YELLOW/GREY, priority, actions) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core topic and packs meaningful output details. It is appropriately short, though the fragment 'RED/YELLOW/GREY with priority and actions' could be integrated into a fuller sentence.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only a terse description. It does not explain what a gap report consists of beyond color labels, how to invoke it meaningfully, or what the optional parameters do at a behavioral level. This is incomplete for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 covers both parameters (entity_id and token_symbol) with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, 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 identifies the resource (MiCA compliance gaps) and the output categories (RED/YELLOW/GREY with priority and actions), but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'generates' or 'reports.' It is understandable but does not clearly state what the tool does as a discrete operation, and does not distinguish it from siblings like assess_entity or readiness_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assess_entity, mica_watchdog, or generate_report. The description offers no context for selecting it, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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