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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds useful context: third-party provider (Atlas Data), caching up to 24 hours, x402 pricing at 0.02 USD per call, and legal disclaimers that it is not legal advice or legally binding. It does not describe authentication or error behavior, but the disclosed cost, cache, and disclaimer are meaningful operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds mode, provider, cache, legal, and pricing context. It is dense but every sentence contributes useful information; the citations and disclaimers add trust for a regulatory tool rather than wasting space.

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 an 11-parameter regulatory lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool checks, what it returns conceptually (Annex I status, commodity, country risk, due-diligence regime, obligation dates), its listing modes, limits, cache behavior, pricing, and legal caveats. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 11 parameters, including mode, codes, items, companySize, and referenceDate. The description reinforces the high-level behavior (up to 25 codes, role and company size affecting obligations) but does not add syntax or format details 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 states a precise regulatory check: EUDR scope and country-risk classification for up to 25 HS/CN codes, including Annex I commodity determination, country risk under Implementing Reg. (EU) 2025/1093, due-diligence regime, and obligation timing. It also explicitly says it can list Annex I products or country risk levels, making the tool's scope unambiguous against unrelated sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: checking whether a product falls within EUDR scope and what obligations apply. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the regulatory specificity makes its intended use evident.

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