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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world behavior are covered. The description usefully scopes the data to a specific regulation version (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744) and notes the return contents, but adds nothing about result size, ordering, or caching beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs in scope, source regulation, and returned content with no filler or repetition. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 read-only, no-required-param listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned fields and the temporal scope. It could be more complete by clarifying the result shape or the semantics of the 'days left' value, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 optional parameter 'upcomingOnly' is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions 'how many days are left' but does not explain the filter's behavior or default in its own text.

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 resource (EU AI Act application dates, post-2026 Digital Omnibus) and enumerates the returned fields (what applies, to whom, legal basis, days remaining), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like classify_ai_system or estimate_ai_act_fine, but the subject matter is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling tools, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The 'every application date' phrasing implies a reference-lookup use case but leaves the agent to infer it.

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