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

Even though readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already cover safety, the description adds value beyond annotations: it clarifies that only open plans are returned, explains what the report contains, and discloses why recording is not possible here (Article 11(3) documentation, named-person attribution). This is substantive behavioral context rather than a restatement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the parameter guidance is placed before the regulatory rationale. Every sentence adds information, though the final sentence about eudr.dev and 'our choice rather than the Regulation's wording' could be tightened.

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 output schema and annotations, nothing an agent needs to use the tool correctly is missing: it covers the report's contents, the one-vs-all parameter behavior, and the read-only boundary. The regulatory context also helps the agent judge whether this is the right tool for the user's intent.

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 schema already describes shipment_id as optional and explains the omit behavior, so coverage is 100%. The description repeats the same guidance without adding new detail such as formats or examples, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 is built around a specific verb, 'Report', a precise resource ('Article 11 risk-mitigation plans ... open against flagged shipments'), and enumerates the exact content (outstanding steps, discharged article, automation, evidence). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as 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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: 'Pass a shipment id for one plan, or omit it for everything still open', and states the read-only boundary with recording deliberately delegated to eudr.dev. It does not name any sibling tool as an alternative, but the context ('this answers how far that has got') clearly frames when to call it.

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