application_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavioral traits: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), a sentinel value ('unverified') when the snapshot could not confirm a date, and a disclaimer that output is information rather than advice. It does not address read-only status or data source freshness, but for an informational lookup tool the disclosure is strong.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the first sentence becomes a dense, parenthetical enumeration of returned content that is hard to scan. The subsequent sentences about date format and the disclaimer are useful, but the overall structure is cumbersome.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description must describe return values, and it does list the date, article, wording, conditions, related dates, and postponement history. It also explains the date format and the 'unverified' marker. The only gap is that it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, though no annotations exist to contradict.

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 the schema already documents the single operator_type parameter and its accepted values. The description adds only the phrase 'by operator type,' which conveys no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific resource—the application dates of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 by operator type—and enumerates the content returned (article, wording, conditions, related dates, postponement history). It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as eudr_scope or country_risk, but its subject matter is unmistakable without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The reader can infer that it is for looking up obligation dates by operator type, but the description never states a task context or prerequisite for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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