REP27 — EU & UK legal representative

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes only the subject-matter scope (provider, entities, contacts, terms, verification) rather than behavioral context like freshness or data source. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 no filler, and the resource ('REP27 service') is front-loaded before the content list. Every word earns its place for a zero-argument info tool.

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 return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description sufficiently scopes the content for a zero-param read-only tool. The only gap is the absence of any usage trigger, which is minor given how narrow the siblings' functions are.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description appropriately adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 concrete resource (the REP27 service's provider) and enumerates the content it returns: legal entities, contacts, terms, verification. This is clearly an informational lookup and is distinguishable from siblings like get_plans or create_checkout. The verb is implicit ('Who provides...') rather than an explicit action, which keeps it from 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The use case (fetch provider/legal info) is inferable from the topic list, but the description never states the condition under which an agent should call this rather than, say, get_plans.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: it explains why the answer is given (legal basis), that exemptions are listed, that a cheapest-combination recommendation is produced, and that a personal result_url page is returned. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only assessment tool this is solid added context.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: what is determined, what the output explains, what is recommended, and what is returned. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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 14-parameter legal-assessment tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, reasoning output, exemptions, recommendation, and the result_url artifact. It omits any hint about how many/which facts are minimally required beyond the two required params, a minor gap.

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% across all 14 parameters, so the schema already carries the full semantics (including defaults and enum-like value lists for lang and currency). The description only says 'a few facts about the company' and adds no field-level guidance, so the 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 (checks) plus the exact determinations it makes: EU GDPR Art. 27 representative, UK GDPR Art. 27 representative, GPSR Art. 16 responsible person. An agent can distinguish this from informational siblings like about_rep27 purely from the description.

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?

It signals the trigger condition ('from a few facts about the company') and that it is a determination tool rather than an informational one, but never states when not to use it or routes the agent between this and the sibling about_rep27. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: payment is completed on an external Mollie page and never in the chat, and the tool returns a payment link rather than a completed transaction. It does not address what happens on repeat calls (duplicate checkouts) or any auth/rate constraints, so it stops short of full coverage.

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, front-loading the action and resource before the buyer fields and the external-payment caveat. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 13-parameter (6 required) open-world mutation tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, with whose data, and where payment occurs. The return-value explanation is redundant given the output schema, and the lack of prerequisite ordering (plan from get_plans) is a minor remaining gap.

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%, so every parameter including enums (service, billing, territory) and defaults is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the four buyer fields it names and adds no format, constraint, or dependency information beyond the schema, making this the baseline case.

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 (creates) and resource (the secure Mollie checkout), plus the key inputs and the returned artifact (payment link). It is distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_plans and check_obligations, but it never explicitly contrasts with the nearby sibling start_free_trial, which is the obvious free alternative.

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 phrase 'the chosen REP27 plan' implies a plan must first come from get_plans, and 'payment happens on Mollie's page' tells the agent this is the paid path, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and openness profile is settled. The description adds the data source (REP27's catalogue) and the shape of the answer, but its return-value detail overlaps with the existing output schema and it says nothing about rate limits, auth, or result ranking beyond 'best matches'.

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 opens with the verb and resource before the parenthetical examples and the return clause. It is dense with enumerations but every clause carries information; only mild trimming would be possible.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is the missing routing guidance relative to check_obligations.

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% for both parameters (lang and product), including examples and the ISO 639-1 language hint, so the schema carries the semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource (searches REP27's product-category catalogue) and enumerates both the domain (toys, cosmetics, electronics…) and the payload returned (EU legal figure and REP27 service). The title adds a user-facing framing that helps an agent match intent, but it never explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling, check_obligations.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never explains the boundary with check_obligations (which also concerns regulatory requirements) or when the agent should prefer this lookup over that one, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content beyond that: what the response covers (first-year vs renewal pricing, inclusions, free-trial and cancellation terms), which is useful for an agent deciding whether this call answers the user's question.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the returned data and then the modifiers, with no filler sentences. Slightly heavy prose but every clause carries 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 return format need not be explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description supplies enough scope and content detail for an agent to invoke this confidently; only explicit usage routing 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%, so all four parameters (lang, service, currency, territory) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the service/territory semantics but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, making the 3 baseline correct.

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 ('Returns') and a precisely scoped resource: REP27 plans with first-year price, renewal price, inclusions, plus free-trial and cancellation terms. It also names the two service variants (GDPR Art. 27 vs GPSR Art. 16), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_checkout and start_free_trial.

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 implied by the content description (use this to see pricing and terms), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing hint toward siblings such as start_free_trial or create_checkout. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection context.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no credit card is needed and the user will receive a follow-up email, which tells the agent the operation is asynchronous and not self-completing.

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 the outcome front-loaded and the downstream email effect last. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly sufficient, though it never mentions the service parameter (which selects the trial product line), leaving an agent to discover that from the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters; baseline is 3. The description names only the four required fields (name, email, company, country) and adds a 'work email' nuance, but omits the service, lang, and notes options.

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+resource — 'Starts the REP27 7-day free trial' — with a qualifier ('no card') that hints at how it differs from create_checkout. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the free-trial framing 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the '(no card)' qualifier, which suggests this is the frictionless path relative to a paid checkout, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not condition or alternative is given. An agent can infer context but must guess at prerequisites.

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