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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: three distinct version values per standard and that one is refreshed by Eudigo's daily check, which tells the agent about data freshness. It stops short of stating auth needs 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the returned data points, then the name/no-name branching — a logical, information-dense order. The parenthetical standard list costs space but usefully bounds scope; every sentence carries meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the domain scope and the `name` semantics. The only real hole is the undocumented `lang` parameter, which matters for a bilingual content tool. Otherwise complete for a 2-param lookup.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well for `name`, giving the accepted forms (id or abbreviation) with concrete examples ('openid4vp', 'HAIP') and the null-case behavior. But it says nothing about `lang` (de/en), so one of two parameters is entirely undocumented outside the enum.

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 concrete verb and resource — retrieving EUDI Wallet standards (OpenID4VCI, HAIP, SD-JWT VC, mdoc, etc.) and their versions — and even enumerates the concrete data points returned (latest publisher version, regulatory version, daily check result). None of the sibling tools (get_country, get_deadlines, lookup_term...) overlap, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 clearly distinguishes the two invocation modes — without `name` it lists all standards briefly, with `name` it returns one in detail — which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling or any exclusion/precondition (e.g. version staleness caveats), so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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