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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses that the call returns duties with their dates plus Spurvik setup steps, and explicitly disclaims legal-advice status and any Article 6 decision. Remaining gaps are minor, such as how uncertain or partial answers affect the classification.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and its output categories, the second covers return content, and the third sets the legal scope. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately takes on the burden of describing return values (duties with dates, setup steps), and it flags the legal limitation an agent needs to relay. It is nearly complete for a 4-parameter read-only tool; only edge behavior for empty or contradictory answer sets is left unstated.

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 enums for annexIii, prohibited, and transparency are self-documenting, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The phrase 'from a few answers' adds only a hint that inputs are sparse and optional beyond inEu, not per-parameter meaning. 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?

The description names a specific verb (self-assessment) and resource (an AI system under the EU AI Act) and enumerates the exact outcome classes it produces: prohibited (Article 5), high-risk (Annex III), Article 50 transparency, minimal risk, or outside the EU. That taxonomy clearly separates it from siblings like spurvik_generate_art50_badge or spurvik_explain_receipt, which handle artifacts rather than classification.

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 gives clear context for when to call it — a self-assessment driven by 'a few answers' — and bounds the applicability with 'not legal advice and not a decision under Article 6.' It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative or stating when not to use it in favor of another tool, so it doesn't reach the explicit routing of a 5.

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