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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does valuable work: it discloses that country-level figures are 'heavily confidentiality-suppressed' and that suppressed/absent values return as null, not zero. It also clarifies the reporter scope (all DS-059358 reporters, not just EU-27). This goes beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases like aggregation defaults or response format.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: scope definition, data-quality caveat, and a parameter hint. It is well-front-loaded and avoids fluff or restating the tool name.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key contextual elements: the exact series returned, the reporting-country scope, null-handling behavior, and a conditional parameter usage tip. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool produces and how to invoke it correctly without consulting additional sources.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning: it reiterates the `prodcom_code` use case ('pin a specific PRODCOM mapping') which is already in the schema, and mentions the query object is shared across endpoints, but provides no new syntax or value constraints 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'EU27 and per-country PRODCOM production series' and enumerates the exact series returned (EU quantity, EU production unit value, and per-country equivalents). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_production_concentration by focusing on time series rather than concentration metrics.

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 clear: production data is described as carrying no trade columns, implying this tool is for production-only queries. It also gives a parameter-specific when-to-use hint for `prodcom_code`. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full usage-exclusion guidance.

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