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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the content of the summary (counts by commodity/country, supplier evidence requests) and its scoping to the signed-in organisation. It does not disclose any hidden limitations, but none are expected for a read-only summariser.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value (specific counts, breakdowns, the non-enumeration caveat). No fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns (counts, breakdowns, supplier requests), and its scope (signed-in organisation). The only minor missing piece is an explicit reference to a sibling like eudr_list_statements, but the 'without enumerating' phrasing covers that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail (there are none to add), but it clarifies what the invocation accomplishes, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('summarise'), a resource ('the signed-in organisation's position'), and enumerates exactly what is summarised (filable, blocked, unresolved statements; supplier evidence requests; breakdowns). It explicitly differentiates from enumeration tools by saying 'without enumerating every record', distinguishing it from siblings like eudr_list_statements.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when an overview is needed rather than a detailed listing, as indicated by 'Answers "where do we stand" without enumerating every record.' It implies alternatives for enumeration but does not explicitly name them or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full exclusion.

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