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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees beyond that: 'Nothing is stored and nothing is submitted; this only reads the document you pass,' plus the promise of per-row warnings for unreadable records. This gives the agent a precise side-effect and partial-failure model.

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?

Four sentences, no filler, with the core action and accepted formats front-loaded, followed by output semantics and safety behavior. Every sentence earns its place; the title is redundant but harmless.

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?

The description, combined with rich annotations and an output schema, fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly: it knows inputs, output fields, failure behavior, read-only guarantees, and limits. Nothing essential is missing.

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 parameter descriptions already document format, document, limit, and offset fully. The description adds useful framing like 'the column set eudr.dev publishes' and 'GS1 EPCIS 2.0 JSON-LD document,' but these largely echo what the schema provides. It does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema, so 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a consignment list into structured shipments ready to check.' It explicitly states the accepted input formats (CSV export or GS1 EPCIS 2.0 JSON-LD) and the output shape (rows with supplier, commodity, country, quantity, plot boundaries, plus warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling check, evidence, and statement 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 makes the usage context clear: use it when you have a spreadsheet or GS1 event feed that needs to become structured shipment records. The explicit 'Nothing is stored and nothing is submitted' also signals that this is safe pre-check ingestion. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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