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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds only that the entire annex text is returned in one call, with no notes on truncation, failure modes for invalid numerals, or citation format.

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 sentence with the resource and identifier type front-loaded, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover behavior for this read-only lookup. What remains unstated, such as handling an invalid or nonexistent annex number, is minor for a one-parameter getter.

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% and the parameter already carries the example '"III", "XIV"'. The description's '(roman numeral)' merely echoes that constraint, adding no new syntax, validation, or edge-case information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full text of one annex of the EU AI Act'), which clearly separates it from the sibling get_article and get_recital tools. The parenthetical '(roman numeral)' clarifies the identifier form but the description never names the alternatives, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving annex text when an article or recital won't do. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_article or search_text, and no stated preconditions.

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