eudr_check_deforestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is an 'algorithmic heuristic data reference' and warns against official filing, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the output format, potential side effects, error conditions, or any external calls. The heuristic nature is disclosed, but other behavioral aspects remain opaque.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is stated upfront, followed by a crucial warning and nature clarification. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what results look like and how to interpret them. It only states it's a heuristic reference, but doesn't describe return values, interpretation guidance, or prerequisites. Also, it doesn't guide when to use this versus sibling verification tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond that. It does mention the EUDR cut-off date explicitly, aligning with the default value, but doesn't elaborate on parameter syntax or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents parameters.

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 performs satellite radar triangulation and canopy loss detection against the EUDR cut-off date. The verb 'performs' and the specific resource make the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the function is distinct enough.

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 includes a strong warning not to use it as an official legal filing without manual verification, implying it is for heuristic reference. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like eudr_verify_plot, nor does it provide positive usage conditions. The caution is helpful but the guidance is incomplete.

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