check_casp_authorisation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (JSON with assessment, refs, actions), but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The tool appears to be read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 very concise, with the purpose stated upfront in a single line, followed by parameter and return descriptions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 query tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context, though the sibling tools cover different areas.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'query' is a parameter for regulation ref, identifier, or input data, and that 'api_key' enables Pro+ tier features. The schema only provides default empty strings and types.

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 checks Crypto-Asset Service Provider authorisation requirements and transitional regime. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aml_overlay or classify_crypto_asset by focusing on authorisation specifics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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