Eudigo – EUDI Wallet index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data scope (including that sources may be 'official or not'), but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or what happens for a country without a wallet.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the required input. The content list is dense but all of it is informative about the resource; there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be documented, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter lookup the description is nearly complete; the only real gap is the undocumented `lang` parameter and the absence of explicit routing against list_countries.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it does well for `code`: it clarifies the expected format with examples (DE, FR, AT, EL for Greece) and accepts either EU or ISO codes, resolving the EL/GR ambiguity. However the second parameter, `lang`, is never mentioned, so half the parameters remain undocumented outside the bare enum.

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 a bounded resource (details for one EU member state), then enumerates the content areas returned: wallet, status, sources, dated history, relying party register. The singular 'one country' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_countries, though that alternative is never named explicitly.

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 by the phrase 'Details for one EU member state' – an agent can infer it is the per-country lookup once a code is known. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_countries or get_registers, and no stated prerequisites.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the provenance/confidence model of the returned data — confirmed (in the regulation), derived (calculated), expected (announced, not binding) — which materially affects how an agent should present and trust each date.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the status taxonomy. No filler, though the milestone enumeration is dense and slightly list-like.

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 described. The description supplies the domain scope and the status semantics an agent needs to interpret results. Minor gaps remain: nothing about language handling or date ordering/freshness.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and its semantics are almost fully carried by the enum (de/en) plus default en. The description adds nothing about language behaviour, so no credit above the baseline for a single self-documenting parameter.

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 (key EUDI Wallet rollout dates) and enumerates the concrete milestones covered — public relying party registers, the German d-you wallet launch, mandatory acceptance for banks, energy, telecoms and very large platforms. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_news, get_registers and get_standard. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead.

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 or when-not-to-use statement, but the enumerated milestone list implies the context: an agent seeking compliance timelines or legal deadlines should call this rather than get_news or get_country. The alternative routing 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 the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: newest-first ordering, item composition (date, summary, sources flagged official vs not, Eudigo URL), and the two-overview structure — context the annotations do not carry.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core resource/ordering statement is front-loaded before the schema notes. Slightly clause-heavy, 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-value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement, yet the description still outlines item fields. For a zero-required-parameter read tool it is essentially complete; only the interaction of `region`/`lang` defaults with the two overviews 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines `weeks` well (latest n weekly overviews, range 1-52, which the schema lacks) and implicitly explains `region` via the Germany vs EU overviews, but `lang` is never addressed and region's null default / interaction with the two overviews is not clarified.

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?

Names a specific resource (Eudigo's weekly news on the EUDI Wallet), states ordering (newest first) and the two content scopes (Germany overview, EU overview). An agent can distinguish it from get_deadlines or get_registers, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_articles.

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 and no mention of any alternative tool. The closest thing is the content description, which only implies a digest use case; the `weeks` clause is parameter semantics, not usage routing.

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 a safe idempotent read, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: the check runs daily, it reflects live HTTP status and record counts, and pre-deadline all registers report 'expected'. That pre-deadline caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious state an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the legal citation, then the pre-deadline caveat. Every sentence earns its place except the parenthetical regulation citation, which is heavy detail for an agent deciding how to call the tool but is at least contextually relevant.

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-field explanation is unnecessary; the description still names the returned fields, and adds cadence, legal basis, and the pre-deadline 'expected' state. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this zero-argument tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 (daily availability check) and a precise resource (national registers of relying parties), and enumerates the returned dimensions: status per country, last check, HTTP status, record count, 7-day uptime. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_country or get_deadlines, which cover different resources.

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 description establishes context (a daily availability check of register endpoints) but never states when to call this versus get_country or get_deadlines, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the subject matter rather than explicitly guided.

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/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: three distinct version values per standard and that one is refreshed by Eudigo's daily check, which tells the agent about data freshness. It stops short of stating auth needs or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then the returned data points, then the name/no-name branching — a logical, information-dense order. The parenthetical standard list costs space but usefully bounds scope; every sentence carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the domain scope and the `name` semantics. The only real hole is the undocumented `lang` parameter, which matters for a bilingual content tool. Otherwise complete for a 2-param lookup.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well for `name`, giving the accepted forms (id or abbreviation) with concrete examples ('openid4vp', 'HAIP') and the null-case behavior. But it says nothing about `lang` (de/en), so one of two parameters is entirely undocumented outside the enum.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — retrieving EUDI Wallet standards (OpenID4VCI, HAIP, SD-JWT VC, mdoc, etc.) and their versions — and even enumerates the concrete data points returned (latest publisher version, regulatory version, daily check result). None of the sibling tools (get_country, get_deadlines, lookup_term...) overlap, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 description clearly distinguishes the two invocation modes — without `name` it lists all standards briefly, with `name` it returns one in detail — which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling or any exclusion/precondition (e.g. version staleness caveats), so 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 already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world nature of the tool. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the output fields and defining each status value, which is important for interpreting results correctly.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's scope and is tightly structured. The status definitions are necessary for correct interpretation, and nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema and rich annotations present, the description does not need to repeat safety or return-value details. It is largely complete for a two-parameter read-only listing tool, but the missing explanation of the lang parameter is a small 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the status filter and each status value well, but it says nothing about the lang parameter, leaving one of the two parameters underexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: an overview of the EUDI Wallet across all 27 EU member states, with wallet name, status, and short note. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_country by positioning that sibling as the source for one country's sources and history.

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 states the optional status filter and names get_country as the alternative for per-country sources and history. The condition for choosing between the overview and the single-country tool is clear, though the guidance stops short of a fully explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that entries are bilingual and cite the regulation/specification, which is useful content context, but says nothing about match behavior, fallback when a term is not found, or result limits.

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 naming the resource, the language scope, and the citation behavior, followed by compact examples. No filler, though the parenthetical language note slightly duplicates the lang enum in 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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter glossary lookup the description covers what the tool returns and what to pass; only the match semantics of query remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: '(German/English)' maps to the lang enum and the example terms clarify what kind of strings query accepts. However, it never states whether query is an exact term match, case-insensitive, or free-text, nor how lang affects the result.

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 states a specific resource — definitions of EUDI Wallet and eIDAS terms — with the added scope that entries carry references to the regulation or specification, and it gives concrete example terms. It is easy to tell apart from siblings like get_standard or search_articles, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from them.

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 example terms ('PID', 'relying party', 'WUA'): call this when you need to resolve a domain term. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. search_articles) if no glossary entry exists.

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds value: it signals the corpus is 'reviewed' (curated/quality), notes the DE/EN language scope, and gives an explicit behavioral instruction to link the returned URL as the source.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact parenthetical of audience segments. The structure is efficient, though the long embedded list is dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

This is a low-complexity 2-parameter tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, so the description does not need to explain return shape (it does anyway) or safety. It lacks any mention of result count, pagination, or behavior when no articles match, which is 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It partly compensates by stating the content is German and English, which maps onto the 'lang' enum parameter, but the 'query' parameter's expected syntax/scope (free text, keyword, phrase) is never clarified.

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 (Search) and resource (reviewed articles) and scopes the content domains (citizens, businesses, developers) on the EUDI Wallet/d-you topic. This implicitly separates it from siblings like get_news or lookup_term, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 enumerated topic areas and audience segments, letting an agent infer that this is the tool for topical article lookups. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against alternatives such as get_news.

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