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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a score, gaps, and dated obligations, and adds an important limitation: 'Not legal advice.' It does not detail data handling or side effects, but as a non-mutating readiness check this is adequate.

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 concise sentences: what it is, what it returns, and a key legal disclaimer. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values. The eight parameters are fully documented in the schema. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how to use the boolean inputs to interpret the score, but this is minor given the schema detail.

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 100% parameter descriptions, including detailed enum meanings for category and clear definitions for each boolean readiness factor. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('readiness check') on a clear resource ('EU Digital Product Passport'), and specifies the output: a 0-100 score, gaps, and a dated obligation. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_pricing, query_provenance, and verify.

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 implies use when assessing EU DPP readiness, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for a basic selection, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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