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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: deterministic rule-based validation, no account needed, a 200-product limit, and the exact form of the output including missing fields and aggregate unlock hints. This gives an agent a clear model of what the tool will and will not do.

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 the use case, then input, output, and constraints in a logical order. There is slight redundancy between 'exact missing fields' and 'missing field labels', and 'flexible keys' is stated twice, but overall every sentence carries useful information.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so clearly: per-product score 0-100, ready flag, missing field labels, aggregate top_missing_fields, and unlock_hint. Combined with the deterministic rule mention, input examples, and usage constraints, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema already documents the `products` parameter with 100% coverage and flexible keys. The description adds value by clarifying that any reasonable JSON shape is accepted, giving representative fields, and adding the 200-product-per-call limit that is not present in 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?

The description states a precise action: determining whether a product catalogue is ready for the EU Digital Product Passport (DPP/ESPR) and producing a readiness score. It distinguishes this from siblings such as checking requirements or creating DPPs/data carriers by focusing on readiness scoring of existing products.

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 opens with an explicit use case: 'Use this tool when a company needs to know whether its product catalogue is READY...' and describes the expected input. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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