get_eu_dd_report

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true) already indicate the tool is read-only. The description adds valuable context: it returns GLEIF entity data and sanctions screening, includes coverage notes per country, and notes the limitation with SMEs. This supplements annotations without contradiction.

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 concise—three sentences and a note—with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes meaningful information (purpose, input/output, coverage, limitation). Only minor redundancy with schema descriptions prevents a 5.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity (two input modes, multiple output types, coverage notes, tier restriction), the description covers what the tool does, its limitations, and input options. It could detail sanctions lists or response format, but it is sufficiently complete given the annotations.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The description's input guidance ('20-char LEI code, or company name + optional country') adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool produces an 'EU Due-Diligence report' for international companies, specifying the input (LEI code or company name) and outputs (GLEIF entity data plus sanctions screening). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_dd_report' and 'get_eu_parent' by focusing on EU-specific due-diligence with GLEIF and sanctions.

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 explains when to use the tool (for EU due-diligence with LEI or company name) and notes that SMEs without LEI may not be found, implying an alternative may be needed. It also mentions a tier requirement ('Pro Compliance tier or higher'). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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