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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so richly. It explains what is returned (decision per destination, chain-hold chance, P10/P50/P90 margin, max payable price, deal zone, farmer message without walk-away price), that defaults are surfaced as stated assumptions, that other crops are refused, and that the run is stored as a decision for later outcome recording. This gives the agent an unusually complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 long, but nearly every sentence carries a distinct piece of needed information: outputs, defaults, crop restriction, persistence, and input sourcing. It is front-loaded with the core decision output before adding constraints and input guidance. A small amount of density prevents a perfect score, but there is no wasted content.

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 high complexity — nested lot object, multiple output dimensions, and no meaningful annotation hints — the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers inputs and their source, crop restrictions, what happens with defaults, the output categories, and the persistence side effect. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It directs the agent to send `lot` in the shape of `lot_example` from `eudr_procurement_overview`, and it clarifies an important interaction: the crop is taken from the farm's own record, not necessarily from the lot payload. This materially helps the agent construct correct arguments.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Run the organisation's own buying process on a banana lot from one of its farms.' It goes beyond the title by specifying the concrete outputs per destination (GO / GO WITH CONDITIONS / NEEDS A PERSON / NO-GO, margins, price ceiling, deal zone) and the explicit 'Banana only' scope, which separates it from the other procurement/evidence tools in the sibling list.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: on banana lots from one of the organisation's farms, and it provides an explicit exclusion ('other crops are refused by name'). It also tells the agent where to get a valid `lot` shape: `lot_example` from `eudr_procurement_overview`. It does not name alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use scenario, but the crop constraint and input sourcing guidance make the intended use clear.

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