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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output is verbatim text and distinguishes original articles from inserted articles, which is useful. However, it does not mention language handling, response format, or any limitations such as availability of translated versions.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key information about the tool's output. There is no wasted wording or redundant re-statement of the name. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward lookup 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?

For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the core resource and article-number constraints well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around language behavior and the return format, which an agent would need to invoke the tool with full confidence.

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 for both parameters. It meaningfully explains the allowed values and scope of the `number` parameter, including inserted article identifiers. However, it says nothing about the `language` parameter, its supported values, or its role in retrieving translated 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 clearly identifies the resource (EU AI Act Articles, including specific inserted articles) and the nature of the content (verbatim text). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but 'Verbatim text of...' strongly implies lookup and retrieval. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from the search sibling.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_eu_ai_act. It only describes what is returned, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is appropriate when the article number is already known and verbatim text is needed. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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