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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the report includes article breakdown, evidence, bridges, and audit, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only or creates a record, whether it has side effects, what the return format is, or any permission requirements. 'Generate' suggests mutation but is ambiguous, leaving the agent without critical safety or runtime context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. The second sentence efficiently lists report contents. No wasted information, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 appears complex, with no output schema and only a minimal description. It fails to specify return format, required inputs, or how the report relates to sibling tools like audit_trail or bridge_approve. The listed contents provide some context, but the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with the correct parameters and expectations.

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% with both parameters described ('Entity ID' and 'Token e.g. USDC'), so the schema already provides basic meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the token focus, such as whether entity_id is needed alongside token_symbol or how they interact. This meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 generates a MiCA compliance report for a token, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'Full article breakdown, evidence, bridges, audit' outlines the report's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools like gap_report or assess_token, so it misses the high bar of distinguishing among alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for comprehensive compliance reporting, but it does not mention prerequisites, which parameters are required (entity_id, token_symbol, or both), or situations where a narrower tool like assess_token or gap_report would be preferable. The context signals show multiple sibling tools with overlapping purposes, but the description offers no differentiation.

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