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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add genuine interpretive context the annotations cannot carry — that an entry is a licence/registration/approval, not proof of issuance, and that provider registers list companies rather than instruments. It does not mention pagination behaviour or data freshness, so it goes beyond annotations but not exhaustively.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then moves to concrete use cases, then closes with the two caveats that matter most for correct interpretation. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. For a zero-required-parameter, 5-param search tool over a specialised domain, the description supplies scope, invocation recipes, and the semantic caveats an agent needs to avoid misusing the results. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by showing how parameters combine in practice ('pass query without country' for cross-jurisdiction lookup, kind=issuance for the list-of-issues case). It does not explain the 'candidate' vs confirmed distinction beyond what the enum already states, so it does not fully supplant the schema.

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 ('Official registers of tokenized assets and digital-asset firms') with scope ('any of 250 jurisdictions') and enumerates what the data contains (supervising authority, public registers, the entries themselves). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling market/asset-search tools, which deal with prices and instruments rather than regulatory registers.

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?

Gives three concrete invocation patterns ('what is registered in Lithuania', 'is firm X licensed anywhere' with query-but-no-country, and kind=issuance for 'which countries publish a list of token issues'). It also states explicit exclusions: entries are not proof of issuance and provider registers must never be counted as tokens, which prevents two plausible misuse modes.

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