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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real substance beyond them: it discloses the output's structure (unmet items with article reference and recommended follow-up, split into filing-blocking vs. merely-incomplete), and explicitly scopes its own authority by stating it does not read documents or judge evidence. It omits any note on the 50-supplier batch cap, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and legal anchor, the second states the return shape, the third states scope limits. The most important information (what is missing per supplier) is front-loaded, and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Low-complexity, single-input, read-only tool with a 100%-documented schema and an existing output schema, so the description need not explain return values—and it still sketches them usefully. It is essentially complete; only the batch-size ceiling and explicit sibling routing are left to structured data or inference.

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% and there is effectively one top-level parameter, with each nested field already documented including article mappings (e.g. email/address for Article 9(1)(e), scientific_name for 9(1)(a)). The description says 'checklist over the fields you supply' but adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Check what each supplier's file is still missing') plus a precise, normatively-anchored resource (Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115), and it names the deliverable ('returns the unmet items with their article reference'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like eudr_fetch_evidence or eudr_request_supplier_evidence because it is a gap analysis, not a fetch or a request.

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 closing sentence establishes a clear boundary of applicability: it is a checklist over supplied fields, reads no documents, and judges no evidence, which tells the agent not to reach for it when document inspection or evidentiary judgment is needed. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. eudr_fetch_evidence) for those cases, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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