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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the scope (physical product, EU sale), the required inputs (four facts only the seller knows), and the nature of the output (a real per-product answer rather than general guidance). It does not describe the exact return format, but it is not misleading.

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 three focused sentences: function, target user/question, and key prerequisite/value. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage and clear scope, the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of an output schema, but the phrase 'which technical documentation is required' partially communicates what the answer contains.

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%, with all five parameters documented and four constrained by enums. The description adds the context that four seller-only facts are required, which maps to the required fields, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the EU General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) applies to a specific physical product sold into the EU, and which technical documentation is required.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its unrelated sibling forge_business_valuation_estimate and from generic guidance.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for sellers on Amazon, Etsy, Shopify and other marketplaces who need a per-product GPSR answer. It also states the prerequisite that four seller-only facts are required, implying the tool should be used when those facts are available, but it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tool conditions.

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