eudr_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the data source (dated CELLAR snapshot, consolidated text plus amending acts), what the returned fields are (commodity, Annex entry text, later/removed entries, legal acts, date checked), and the accepted code formats. It stops short of noting any caching, latency, or ambiguity-resolution behavior, but for a read-only information tool this is close to complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then return values, then accepted formats and the disclaimer. Dense but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is a long run-on enumeration of statuses.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values and it does so thoroughly, enumerating all four status values and the accompanying payload fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by specifying accepted digit lengths (2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the multiple separators it tolerates, which the schema only hints at with one example.

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 question it answers (is a CN code a relevant product under EUDR 2023/1115) with a clear verb+resource, and enumerates the exact statuses it returns. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like commodity_codes, country_risk, or application_dates.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated question and the explicit boundary 'Does not classify goods', which tells the agent this is a lookup, not a classifier. However, it never names or contrasts an alternative tool, so the agent must infer when eudr_scope is preferred over siblings.

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