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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it 'reads no documents and judges no evidence' and that it returns a separation of blocking vs. incomplete items, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side-effect-free operation.

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 with no filler. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, and every sentence adds information: what it checks, what it returns, and its scope/limitation. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a read-only checklist tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the output nature (unmet items with article references, blocking vs. incomplete), and the limitation (no document reading). It does not mention the max supplier count (in schema) or authentication requirements, but those are covered by schema/annotations. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 compensate by explaining the 'suppliers' parameter and its fields, but it does not. It only refers generically to 'the fields you supply' without describing which fields, their formats, or requiredness. The schema itself is well-documented, but the description adds zero parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent to rely entirely on 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') against a clear resource ('each supplier's file') and a named regulation (Article 9(1) of EU 2023/1115). It also states what is returned (unmet items with article reference and what to request) and distinguishes blocking vs. incomplete items, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 clarifies that it is a checklist over the fields supplied and explicitly states it 'reads no documents and judges no evidence,' which helps an agent decide when to use it (when structured supplier data exists) versus tools that handle documents. However, it does not name a specific alternative or provide an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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