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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the scope (both food-safety and process-hygiene criteria), the specific data returned (sampling plan, stage, actions), and the special note about the Listeria criterion change in 2026. It also discloses the fallback behavior for the 'categorie' parameter. While it doesn't mention auth or rate limits, these are irrelevant for a read-only query tool. The description could go deeper on return format, but it provides solid behavioral context.

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 bilingual, presenting the same information in French and English. While this serves a multilingual audience, it doubles the length without adding new information per sentence. The core content is well-structured and front-loaded, but the redundancy and verbosity prevent a higher score.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior: it lists the types of criteria, the pathogens, the sampling plan fields, the application stages, the actions on exceedance, and the regulatory update. It also explains the optional parameter's behavior. This is complete enough for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it.

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%, and the parameter description is already detailed with valid values and fallback behavior. The tool description adds only a brief mention of the optional 'categorie' parameter, which does not meaningfully enhance what the schema already provides. Hence, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 regulatory microbiological criteria for foodstuffs under specific EU regulations, enumerating the types of criteria and parameters included. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which address microbiological standards.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when applying EU microbiological criteria, checking sampling plans, or verifying Listeria changes) by outlining exactly what it returns. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit exclusions required for a score of 5.

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