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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (score and 10 article statuses) which is helpful, but it does not detail side effects, data dependencies, or whether a token_symbol or entity_id is required. The behavior is clearly a read-only assessment but lacks depth.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and output. It is concise, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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, the description adequately conveys the return structure (score and color per article). However, it does not explain how to choose between the two optional parameters or whether at least one is required. The tool's moderate complexity is only partially covered.

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% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Both entity_id and token_symbol are described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify optionality or selection logic between the two parameters.

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 computes a 'MiCA readiness score + Ampel per article for a token', specifying the resource (token) and the precise output (GREEN/YELLOW/RED/GREY for 10 articles, score 0-100). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like article_status or entity_ampel by focusing on a complete per-article token assessment.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for token readiness checks, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why it should be preferred over assess_token or gap_report.

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