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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses the regulatory basis and the 50t threshold that presumably drives the annual_mass_tonnes parameter, plus an explicit exclusion ("No carbon math"). However, it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what a "readiness" verdict consists of, or how the regimes are evaluated when regime="both".

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the regime scope front-loaded and the exclusion last; nothing is redundant. It loses a point because the compression of "GeoJSON/CN readiness" and "50t rule" trades clarity for brevity.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the regulatory context well but omits what the response looks like — per-regime verdicts, field-level readiness flags, or errors. An agent knows when to call it but not fully what to expect back.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds one genuinely useful linkage — the "50t rule" gives meaning to annual_mass_tonnes — but leaves query_note, plot_hectares, and geojson_ring_closed's role in the check unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ("Check") tied to two named regulatory regimes with their regulation numbers (2023/956, 2023/1115) and the 50t de-minimis rule, which no sibling covers. "GeoJSON/CN readiness" is compressed jargon that an agent must decode, but the scope is still clear enough to distinguish this from the unrelated eligibility/readiness siblings.

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?

"No carbon math" implies a boundary — this tool determines scope/readiness, not emissions calculations — but no alternative tool is named for the excluded case, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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