eudr_verify_plot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it auto-heals inverted coordinates and self-intersecting polygons, and it explicitly labels the result as an algorithmic heuristic data reference rather than authoritative. However, it does not state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., whether it modifies input data), whether it is read-only, or what the exact return format is. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the auto-heal behavior, a legal disclaimer, and a heuristic caveat. Every clause earns its place, making it highly efficient 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 five parameters (four required) and no output schema. The description explains the core validation purpose and provides a legal warning, but it does not mention the return value or output format, which the agent would need to interpret the result. It also does not emphasize the area_hectares rule (>=4.0 requires polygon boundaries) that is in the schema, but since the schema covers that, it is less critical. Overall, it is adequate but missing return-value details, so a 3 is warranted.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds only minimal extra meaning, such as tying coordinates to GIS and polygon boundaries, and mentions auto-healing which relates to the coordinates parameter. This does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Validates'), a clear resource ('GIS coordinates and polygon boundaries'), and a named standard (EUDR Art. 9). It also mentions auto-healing behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling verification tools, but the purpose is distinct enough from other tools like deforestation checks or VAT verification, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies usage: it validates coordinates and boundaries against EUDR standards. It provides a caution against using it for official legal filing without manual verification, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the legal-filing caveat. Sibling differentiation is missing, so it earns a 3.

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