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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and goes further by explaining the human-only decision recording workflow and the legal requirement. This adds contextual depth beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then the parameter behavior, then the read-only rationale. Every sentence adds value: legal context, outputs, and usage exclusions. No fluff, clear structure.

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 query tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, parameter semantics, the read-only constraint, and the legal backdrop. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect. No gaps.

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 input schema has a single optional parameter, fully described ('Optional. One shipment's plan; omit for every open plan.'). The description essentially repeats this usage. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little over the schema, but it does integrate the parameter into the broader usage guide. 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 clearly states the tool reports Article 11 risk-mitigation plans, enumerates the specific outputs (which steps are outstanding, which article each discharges, automation vs. human step, evidence recorded), and defines scope via flagged shipments. This is a specific verb+resource with no ambiguity, and it stands apart from the many sibling 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: for querying mitigation status, either for one shipment (pass id) or all open plans (omit id). It explicitly distinguishes from recording decisions, which must happen on eudr.dev, and explains why (Article 11(3) requires attribution to a named person). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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