eudr_generate_customs_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the output artifact (HTML with QR code and seals). It does not disclose whether generating the certificate mutates state, requires external official EU systems, has legal implications, or fails on invalid/unverified inputs.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the artifact name and key output features. No filler or repetition beyond the word 'official,' which is not significantly wasteful.

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 description names the output format and key visual elements, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and a potentially consequential official document, it lacks prerequisites, side-effect disclosure, and any indication of what the agent should do after generation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Generates') applied to a clearly named artifact: the EU SWE-C Green Lane Clearance Certificate HTML, including QR code and seals. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling generation tools like eudr_generate_dds or eudr_export_traces_xml.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as verified plot data or an existing compliance check. The description only names what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling names and schema.

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