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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that output is 'grounded verbatim in the law,' which is a useful behavioral trait, and it specifies the result categories. However, it does not mention limitations such as non-authoritative status, dependence on the quality of the description, or behavior for unclassifiable systems.

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 wasted words. The core output is front-loaded (risk tier, Annex III, Articles), followed immediately by a practical usage trigger. Every clause 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?

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description does a solid job of conveying what the tool returns and when to use it. It lacks detail on the response format or edge-case behavior, but for the purpose of selecting and invoking the tool it is nearly sufficient.

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 50%: the 'description' parameter is documented in the schema, and the tool description also references it as the input. The 'language' parameter is not described and has no default explanation beyond the schema default of 'en'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Classify'), a specific resource ('an AI system under the EU AI Act'), and the exact output dimensions (risk tier, Annex III category, binding Articles). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like lookup_article and search_eu_ai_act, which focus on retrieval 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?

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use whenever asked if an AI system is high-risk/prohibited or what obligations apply.' It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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