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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one behavioral trait: 'AI-assisted with mandatory human sign-off', which indicates human approval is required. However, it does not disclose what happens during classification, delay, or disclosure, whether records are created, whether it has side effects, or any prerequisites. The description is thin on behavioral details.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes regulatory references (MiCA Art. 87-88, Implementing Regulation 2024/2861) which are informative but slightly dense. It avoids unnecessary fluff, earning a good score, though the regulatory citation may be overly specific for a broad audience.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what actions are available (though the schema lists 'classify, delay, or status'), what the tool returns, or the workflow steps. The description mentions a workflow but does not describe its steps, making it insufficient for a complex regulatory 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the workflow or offer usage examples. Since the schema fully describes each parameter, the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no extra value.

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 states that the tool handles 'Inside Information classification, delay and disclosure workflow per MiCA Art. 87-88', which clearly identifies the resource (inside information) and the actions (classify, delay, disclose). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this specific regulatory workflow. However, the description uses a noun phrase ('workflow') rather than a specific verb, and does not explicitly say 'performs' or 'manages', making it slightly less direct than a full purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for inside information handling, but does not state explicit use cases, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like article_status or assess_entity. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context is provided.

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