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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it defines the 'Planned, not law yet' and 'being re-checked' output labels, discloses the not_covered result state and how to handle it, and constrains answer phrasing and citation retention.

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 what it does and when to use it, followed by response-handling rules. It is fairly long, but nearly every sentence is an actionable constraint rather than filler, so it earns most of its length.

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, so the description usefully compensates by describing the label semantics, the not_covered case, and citation expectations. Minor gaps remain around result format or volume, but an agent has enough to call and present this correctly.

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% with three self-documented parameters, including the enum and the since/locale/categories defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description restates only the since-lookback default, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource — reports changes in EU passport law and standards — scoped to the user's product categories since a date, and gives a concrete default lookback. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like registry_guidance or scope_check, which serve different intents.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('what's new' or 'has X been adopted') and a when-not signal (items marked Planned are not yet law; not_covered means say so). It never names alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of the 5-level requirement of explicit alternatives.

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