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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: possible result statuses ('found' / 'not_found' / 'unavailable') and that every result carries source, publication date, checksum, and retrieval time. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover auth or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds value: field list, targeted use case, result statuses, provenance, and disclaimers. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context: what input to use, what the output includes, and the limitations of the result. A minor gap is that it does not mention behavior when logicalId is missing, but that is likely addressed by the schema and the 'surfaced by a prior screen' hint.

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% for the single parameter logicalId, whose description already explains it comes from a prior screen candidate. The tool description repeats this notion but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 the full official listing detail for a candidate logicalId, enumerating the fields (names, programme, legal basis, listing date, identifier types, countries). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieval of an official listing for a prior-screened entity, but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 states the intended use: retrieving detail 'for a candidate logicalId surfaced by a prior screen', which ties it to the screening workflow. It also provides exclusions: 'Screening evidence only; not a legal/compliance determination, not a clearance.' However, no explicit alternative tools are named for when not to use this one.

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