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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain behavior beyond that: publication dates are 'almost always Thursdays, weekly since 1978' and each returns a 'real document count per date'. It stops short of deeper operational detail (rate limits, auth, pagination), so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: identity/cadence, filtering rules, and the follow-up hand-off. The routing information is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 still discloses what a returned row contains ('a real document count per date') and how to consume a result downstream. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the meaningful interaction rule that omitting both year and from/to yields the most recent dates, plus a concrete example ('2026'). That interaction behavior is not restated in the schema and materially affects invocation.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a precisely scoped resource (EPO European Publication Server publication dates) with cadence context. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling eps_list_publications by naming that tool as the follow-up for a chosen date, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

States the three selection paths (year, from/to range, or omit both), the supported date formats, and what happens when no filter is supplied. It also names the concrete next step ('Use a returned date with eps_list_publications'), giving explicit when-to-use and alternative-tool guidance.

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