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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the human sign-off requirement for 'reasonable suspicion' and AI-assisted detection, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't explain what happens with each action (detect/escalate/status), authentication requirements, or any side effects. The information is relevant but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that is well-structured, front-loading the full tool name, regulatory basis, and key operational trait. No redundancy or filler. It achieves maximum information density in minimal space.

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 complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the workflow phases (what 'detect' vs 'escalate' vs 'status' do), return values, or the sequence of steps. The mandatory sign-off is mentioned but not detailed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the correct action.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds context that human sign-off is mandatory, which relates to approved_by but doesn't clarify exact parameter usage or relationships. Baselines at 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description doesn't significantly enhance 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 identifies the tool as a STOR workflow under MiCA Art. 92, with AI-assisted detection and mandatory human sign-off. It distinguishes itself from generic entity assessment tools by focusing on regulatory reporting. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'create' or 'manage', and the multi-action nature (detect/escalate/status) is only implied, not stated.

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. Sibling tools like insider_escalation could overlap, but the description doesn't mention any exclusions or comparative context. The regulatory reference (MiCA Art. 92) provides some context but doesn't clarify selection criteria.

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