eudr_verify_plot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It genuinely discloses a non-obvious trait — auto-healing inverted coordinates and self-intersecting polygons — which tells the agent the tool corrects rather than merely rejects malformed input. But it does not disclose what happens when healing fails, whether validation persists or mutates stored plot data, or what the success/failure outcome looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact (auto-healing). Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with 4 required fields, an agent can invoke it correctly from the schema alone. But since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return semantics and side effects; it describes neither what the validation result looks like (pass/fail object, healed coordinates?) nor whether the tool mutates records. The core behavior is covered, but these gaps matter at this complexity level.

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 marginal value beyond the schema: the auto-heal note tells the agent that the coordinates parameter tolerates inverted [lat, lng] ordering, and the Art. 9 reference contextualizes why geometry matters. This is not enough to raise the score above the baseline, but there are no undocumented 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 names a specific verb ('Validates'), a concrete resource ('GIS coordinates and polygon boundaries'), and the governing standard ('EUDR (EU 2023/1115) Art. 9'). This distinguishes it from siblings like eudr_check_deforestation (deforestation assessment) and eudr_verify_audit_integrity (audit integrity), and the second sentence clarifies distinct validation behavior.

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 context is implied through the validation framing — an agent can infer this is the geometry-compliance step in an EUDR workflow. However, the description never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, offers no exclusions, and does not route to any of the 11 siblings (e.g., 'for deforestation history, use eudr_check_deforestation').

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