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

Description provides minimal behavioral information: it states it returns monitored sources and alerts, but does not disclose whether it makes external network calls, requires authentication, or has side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but falls short.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Both sentences add value: purpose and output. No fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description gives a basic idea of purpose and return type, but it is vague about the structure of returned alerts and how the parameter works in practice. Overall adequate but with gaps.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'days_back' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how the parameter affects the monitoring scope.

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 uses the specific verb 'Monitor' and identifies specific regulators (ESMA/EBA/BaFin) and topic (MiCA regulatory changes), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like freshness_check or health_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for tracking MiCA regulatory updates but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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