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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that each record carries a response status and an expiry timestamp, which is helpful domain context. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether expired requests are included, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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, both front-loaded, with no repetition of the title or annotation content. The scope statement comes first and the business question it answers comes second, which is the right order for scanning.

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?

With an output schema present, no parameters, and full annotation coverage, the description need only convey scope and intent, which it does. The only missing piece is guidance on how the returned request list relates to the gap-assessment workflow, which would help an agent choose between the two tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no risk of mis-invocation from undocumented arguments. It correctly does not invent parameters or filtering options.

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 ('List the supplier evidence requests this organisation has issued') and adds the exact fields returned: requester, response status, and expiry date. It implicitly contrasts with eudr_request_supplier_evidence by focusing on already-issued requests, but never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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 phrasing 'Answers which suppliers still owe plot boundaries and production details' implies the scenario in which to reach for this tool, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to a related tool such as eudr_assess_evidence_gaps, so the agent must infer the choice.

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