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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: no account/authentication is required, and the analysis is driven by headcount and turnover rather than arbitrary inputs.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by input and auth qualifiers. Every clause carries information, though the enumeration of four regimes makes the first sentence dense.

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 naming the four determinations the tool returns (CSRD applicability, VSME relevance, value-chain cap, CO2-Prestatieladder). Adequate for an agent to know what comes back, though the shape of the result is unstated.

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 every parameter including the asked_by enum and eu_parent default is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that headcount and turnover are the operative inputs, adding little semantic value beyond that baseline.

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 verb (checks) and a precisely scoped resource (CSRD applicability after the 2026 simplification, VSME, value-chain cap, Dutch CO2-Prestatieladder). The scope detail makes it distinguishable in practice from the sibling explain_disclosure, though the sibling is never named.

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?

"Uses headcount and turnover; no account needed" gives input and auth context, and the purpose implies when it applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against explain_disclosure, so the agent must infer which of the two siblings to pick.

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