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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world). The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (required fields, which are present, which missing) and a critical interpretation caveat that output must never be reported as compliance confirmation.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, return contents second, the compliance caveat last where it is most likely to be retained. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description correctly compensates by describing what is returned, and it flags the legal-interpretation limit of the output. For a single-parameter read-only assessment tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including concrete examples, so the schema already carries the load. The description implies that `category` resolves to a delegated act, but adds no syntax, format, or accepted-value 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 (assess) and resource (readiness of a product category for an EU Digital Product Passport), and names the governing frame (the delegated act that applies). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_passport, verify_passport_credential, and chain_readiness without opening any schema.

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 strong context on what the tool is for and, crucially, what it is not (a legal compliance determination). However it does not explicitly route the agent to an alternative such as verify_passport_credential or get_passport when actual verification or passport retrieval is the goal.

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