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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (organisation account, newest-first ordering) and listed return fields, but does not mention pagination limits or that limit filters results; with an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the use case. No filler; length is proportionate.

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 read-only, idempotent list tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is almost complete. It could mention that results are limited by default or how to paginate, but no critical information for correct invocation 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% and the schema describes each parameter (limit default 20, country pattern, verdict enum) plus the output schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (list) and resource (Due Diligence Statements), scopes it to the signed-in organisation, and enumerates the returned fields (verdict, reference, commodity, country, quantity, date). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like eudr_get_dds (single fetch) and eudr_prepare_dds (create).

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 a clear context for use: answering what has been filed, what is outstanding, and what a past consignment concluded, and explicitly discourages re-entering details. It does not name a specific sibling alternative (e.g. use eudr_get_dds for one statement), but the when-to-use is otherwise specific.

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