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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that it returns the *full text* rather than a snippet or summary — but says nothing about missing/invalid recital numbers or error behavior. With output schema present, return structure needs no explanation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero padding. 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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential contract. It could optionally mention what happens for out-of-range recital numbers or that numbering follows the Act's official sequence, but nothing critical is missing.

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 single parameter 'number' is already documented as 'Recital number'. The description adds no format, range, or validity constraints beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (full text of one recital of the EU AI Act), which is enough to separate it from get_article, get_annex, and get_definition by resource type alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the noun.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The intent is implied by the resource name (recital vs article vs annex), which is enough for basic routing but leaves the agent to infer which resource a given query maps to.

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