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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the search scope but doesn't disclose behavior like whether results are ranked, whether it supports partial matches, language handling, or any limitations. For a search tool, this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent doesn't know what the search returns, how language affects results, or how this differs from lookup_article. For a search tool with two parameters, more context is needed.

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 mentions 'full-text search' and the corpus scope, which implies the query parameter is a search string, but it doesn't explain the language parameter or its default behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 states the tool performs full-text search across the EU AI Act corpus and specifies the resource types (Articles, Recitals, Annexes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_article, which likely retrieves a specific article, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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 description implies usage for searching the corpus, and the sibling list suggests alternatives like lookup_article for targeted retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus classify_ai_system or review_feature, leaving some inference to the agent.

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