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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 'Free' cost signal, the full list of validations applied, and the shape of the response (looks_valid plus check_warnings or fix_needed). It does not cover failure modes, size limits, or how warnings are structured, keeping it below a 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?

The cost qualifier and the usage trigger are front-loaded, and every sentence carries substantive content. The semicolon-chained check list is dense and slightly harder to scan than a bulleted form, which is the only structural weakness.

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?

For a read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece by naming the return fields (looks_valid, check_warnings, fix_needed). What remains unsaid is edge behavior — malformed text input, empty collections, or what fix_needed items look like — but that is a modest gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates them ('geojson (the file as text), optional country (ISO) and commodity') with only marginal added meaning, though it does tie country to the 'plots inside the country of production' check. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 title and first sentence name a specific verb and resource: 'Check an EUDR geolocation (GeoJSON) file'. The description then enumerates the exact checks performed (coordinate order, decimal precision, point-vs-polygon by plot size, closure, self-intersection, country containment, per-plot area), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this from eu_import_rules or supplier_* tools at a glance.

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 states the trigger condition concretely: 'Use when the user has a supplier's EUDR plot file for a due diligence statement (from 30 Dec 2026)'. There is no exclusion or named alternative, but no sibling tool is plausibly confusable, so the absence of explicit 'when-not' guidance is a minor gap rather than a missing signal.

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