check_skin_contact_declaration

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: this tool is gated behind Kiln Enterprise with SSO/RBAC/audit export, which affects whether an agent can call it at all. However, it says nothing about the result shape (pass/fail per market?), whether the call is read-only or records anything, or what happens with the empty-string defaults.

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 one good sentence, but the remaining lines are redundant Enterprise marketing: 'Enterprise adds SSO, RBAC, and audit export' and 'Requires Kiln Enterprise' restate the same gating, followed by an upgrade URL that adds no invocation value.

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 five unconstrained string parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description would need to explain input formats and expected results. Instead it omits what a 'declaration' looks like, how markets are expressed, and what the check returns, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema 'descriptions' are only default values ("Default: \"\"", "plastic", "adult") and convey no domain meaning. Five free-form string parameters with no enums (markets format, declaration syntax, material_scope values, product_category values) get zero explanation in the description, so it does not compensate.

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: checking a supplier substance declaration against per-market restricted-substance limits. That is clearly distinguishable from generic tools, but the sibling check_skin_contact_suitability is not mentioned or contrasted, leaving ambiguity about which check to run.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the licensing gate, and no mention of the closely related check_skin_contact_suitability sibling. An agent must guess at the intended workflow and cannot infer when this is preferred over the suitability check.

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