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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination ('a page at a time'), the fact that each entry is a content address resolving at emem.dev, and offline verification against the responder's key. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the nature of the returned data.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core action and mechanism, the second explains the nature of the data, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and has no filler.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to use it, when to use it, and the nature of the returned data. The output schema likely explains return values, so the description doesn't need to. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention pagination parameters (limit/offset), but the schema covers those, so this is not a significant omission.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the key semantic link that evidence_cid is 'the handle returned by eudr_check_plots', which is useful context beyond the schema's 'The handle returned by eudr_check_plots' (though the schema already says this). The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('signed satellite facts behind a completed check'), and a specific mechanism ('a page at a time, using the evidence_cid'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from summarising a result, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like eudr_compliance_status or eudr_execution_trace.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when someone needs to audit or cite the evidence, not to summarise a result.' This provides a clear usage context and an exclusion, which is strong guidance for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools.

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