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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the returned fields, legal basis, and milestone dates, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 moderately long but well-structured: definition, output fields, then example questions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and giving representative queries. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it omits explicit output format or edge-case behavior.

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 covers all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example queries and output-field context but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 precisely defines the resource as EMA referral procedures under Articles 31, 20, and 107i, and lists concrete output fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling EMA tools such as ema_chmp_opinions or ema_psusa.

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 concrete example questions that signal when to use the tool, such as 'what EU safety referrals are open for X' and 'recent Article 31 referrals'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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