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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavior: returned fields, region filtering, per-call pricing, citation requirements, and a caution not to convert results into investment advice. It does not explicitly state read-only status, data freshness, or pagination/limit behavior.

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 front-loaded with a When to use tag, then outputs, filtering, example, pricing, and citation guidance. The bilingual format is somewhat repetitive but each section serves a purpose.

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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers purpose, returned fields, region filtering, cost, and citation requirements. The main gaps are the undocumented limit parameter and unspecified data freshness or pagination behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the region parameter with valid values (hk/na/eu/apac/me) and an example, but does not explain the limit parameter beyond what the schema shows.

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?

States a specific resource: licensed institutions and regulators, with example user questions about RWA licensing. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling query_regulatory.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance via example questions about RWA licenses, regulators, and jurisdictions. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one instead of query_regulatory or other siblings.

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