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 useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns results 'newest first', includes a specific set of fields, and scopes to the signed-in organisation's account. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the output schema exists and the read-only nature is fully disclosed, so a 4 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 with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action, scope, ordering, and returned fields. The second sentence gives usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is returned, the ordering, the scope, and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain the verdict parameter's meaning or mention pagination behavior, but the output schema and annotations cover most of the context an agent needs.

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 67%, so the schema already documents limit and country. The description adds no new meaning for the parameters themselves; it only lists the fields returned. The verdict parameter has an enum but no description in the schema, and the description doesn't explain it either. With 67% coverage, the description doesn't need to compensate heavily, but it also doesn't add value 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'), a specific resource ('Due Diligence Statements'), and a clear scope ('in the signed-in organisation's account'). It also names the exact fields returned (verdict, reference, commodity, country, quantity, date) and the ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like eudr_get_dds and eudr_export_statement without needing to open their schemas.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to answer what has been filed, what is outstanding, and what a past consignment concluded'. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'rather than asking the user to re-enter details their account already holds'. This is strong usage guidance that routes the agent away from unnecessary user interaction.

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