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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of explaining behavior. It states the data source (RWA registry, 80+ protocols), the optional filter, and the return fields. This is transparent for a read-only query tool, though it doesn't address pagination or performance characteristics, which would be additional context but not strictly required.

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 concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's scope, filtering capability, and return fields. No extraneous content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: data source, filter options, and output fields. It could mention whether the filter is required or how results are ordered, but those are minor gaps. Overall, it is a complete description for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of the parameter ('asset_type') with a list of valid values. The description repeats these values and adds 'etc.', but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies the filter is optional, which is already inferable from the schema's lack of required parameters. Thus, the description adds marginal 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 clearly states the tool returns all MiCA-relevant reserve assets from the RWA registry, with an optional filter by asset_type. It specifies the expected output fields (issuer, LEI, jurisdiction, custody), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools that focus on specific asset types like gold or silver.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this tool to get a broad list of MiCA-relevant assets, optionally filtered by asset_type. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the broad scope and filter options provide clear situational guidance.

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