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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the text is consistent with a pure advisory lookup. Because there is no output schema, the sentence listing the four returned elements is genuinely useful disclosure beyond the annotations; what is missing is any note on how definitive or conditional the answer is (e.g. edge cases where movement mode is ambiguous).

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 sentences with zero filler; the jurisdiction constraint is front-loaded, followed by the decision being made and the returns. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 five-parameter, single-required-field read-only check with no output schema, the description covers scope, timing, decision logic and return content adequately. It would be stronger if it said what happens when moves_goods_by_road is false or how the monthly shipment estimate affects the verdict.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the contractual-shipper hint on hires_carriers. The description adds only the general framing "based on how it moves goods" and no per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: determine whether a company falls under the DeCA electronic transport document obligation, scoped to Spain and to the 5 October 2026 applicability date. It also names the four outputs (obligation, legal responsibility, penalty range, system requirements), so an agent can distinguish it from the broader check_compliance_deadlines sibling.

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?

"Spain only" is an explicit geographic exclusion, and "based on how it moves goods" signals the kind of inputs needed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with check_compliance_deadlines or say when-not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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