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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the concrete output forms (HTML with French labels plus plain text, paste-ready) and the conditional requirement rule for EU-responsible data, though it says nothing about error behavior or missing optional fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a well-structured Args block with one line per parameter. It is somewhat verbose, but nearly every line earns its place given that the schema provides no parameter documentation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the two return formats and their intended use. Combined with full parameter coverage and the conditional EU-responsible rule, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly; only edge-case behavior (invalid input, omitted optional fields) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it explains all eight parameters, clarifies that the three eu_responsible_* fields are required only when the manufacturer is outside the EU (a rule absent from the schema), and specifies that safety_warnings must be in French for the French market.

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 states a specific verb (build/generate) and a precisely scoped resource: the GPSR 'manufacturer and product safety' block required by Regulation (EU) 2023/988 art. 19 for non-food products in the EU. It also names the output artifacts (HTML with French labels and plain text), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like generate_legal_guarantee_box at a glance.

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?

It gives the regulatory condition that triggers the need ('every online offer of a non-food product must show in the EU'), which implies when to use it, and it states when EU-responsible fields are required (manufacturer outside the EU). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool versus generate_legal_guarantee_box, leaving routing to inference.

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