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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new facts — that it derives its answer from headcount and turnover and requires no account. It does not disclose what the result contains or how the jurisdiction options change the outcome, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first before listing jurisdiction variants; every clause carries real information. It is dense and runs long, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what is returned — the shape is only hinted at by the schema's 'section' example (items/0/adoption) and 'cursor' paging. For a 10-parameter, multi-jurisdiction compliance tool, the agent is left guessing at the response structure.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all ten parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that headcount and turnover drive the check, without explaining the roles of country, listed, asked_by, eu_parent or the cursor/section paging pair beyond what the schema says.

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 names a specific decision it makes (does CSRD reporting apply, post-2026 simplification) and enumerates the regimes it covers (French BEGES, VSME/value-chain cap, Dutch CO2-Prestatieladder). It is clearly about a compliance check, but it never names or distinguishes the sibling explain_disclosure, so the agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage context is implied ('Uses headcount and turnover; no account needed'), which tells the agent what inputs are needed and that no auth is required. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of how this differs from explain_disclosure, which is the obvious alternative.

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