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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact return elements (medicine, active substance, procedure status, opinion status/date, withdrawal date) and clarifying that it covers post-marketing activity. No contradiction with 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, well-structured, and efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose ('European Medicines Agency post-authorisation procedures'). It then elaborates with specific outputs and example questions, with no fluff or repetition. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and the scope of procedures. It also gives three distinct example queries that clarify its utility. It does not mention ordering or pagination behavior, but the limit parameter is documented in the schema, and the overall context is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters (limit, query, since, status, category) with formats and examples, giving 100% coverage. The description only adds illustrative examples (like 'since': '2026-07') without adding new semantic meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 resource (EMA post-authorisation procedures) with a clear verb (returns/answers), lists the output fields (medicine, active substance, status, opinion, dates) and gives concrete example questions that distinguish it from the initial approval. It also notes it is 'distinct from the initial approval,' which separates it from other approval-related tools without naming them.

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 provides clear context (post-authorisation vs. initial approval) and example queries that imply when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide strict when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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