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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the returned content ('each with its status, who it applies to and the next date that matters, plus upcoming deadlines'), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by parenthetical detail and a country list. The long enumeration is verbose but justified as it defines valid inputs; otherwise the text is tight with no filler.

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 present, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately (status, applicability, next date, upcoming deadlines). For a single-parameter, read-only lookup the definition is nearly complete, missing only detail on output format/granularity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single 'country' parameter. The description goes beyond it by enumerating the exact supported countries, effectively providing an enum-style constraint the schema lacks, which materially improves correct invocation.

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 resource (national and EU rules for building/running a data centre) with concrete content categories (energy efficiency reporting, waste heat, permitting, grid). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like data_centre_market_overview and grid_connection_status, which cover market and grid data rather than regulatory rules.

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 phrase 'in one European country' and the enumerated country list imply a one-country-per-call usage model, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., market overview for commercial data instead of rules).

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