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, yet it says nothing about read-only status, authentication, error handling, or response shape. 'As the index holds it' faintly suggests an authoritative read, but this is too implicit to count as transparency.

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 sentence with no obvious filler, but its semicolon-heavy structure and lack of a clear action verb make it less front-loaded and harder to parse than it could be.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not provide enough information about parameters or behavior for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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% for two parameters. The description mentions an identifier for an EU work but does not explain the identifier format or clarify the role of the language parameter, which is entirely omitted.

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 identifies the resource as a 'work record' or 'held expressions' from an index, which gives a domain-specific sense of what the tool returns. However, it lacks a clear verb, uses opaque phrasing like 'as the index holds it,' and does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as manifestation or citation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies retrieval by identifier but does not state contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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