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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, and the description reinforces this by saying 'This writes: it creates a credential'. It further discloses that the link is one-time, returns only once, and that no email is sent—providing valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loads the core action, and includes critical caveats in just a few sentences. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, write nature, one-time behavior, and the no-email detail, covering everything an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., it does not elaborate on valid_for_days or email beyond what the schema says). Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create') and resource ('one-time link'), and clearly explains the purpose: letting a supplier submit evidence without an account. It differentiates from siblings like eudr_list_supplier_requests (listing) and eudr_fetch_evidence (fetching) by its action and context.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to collect evidence from a supplier) and adds cautions ('Send it only to the intended supplier', 'No email is sent'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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