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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that templates are pre-filled, tailored to risk category, and highlights that high-risk systems get all 6 mandatory documents. It also instructs to 'Save to docs/, fill in [bracketed] sections,' conveying the output format and intended use. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting files, but the behavior is clearly outlined.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately conveys the core value proposition, and the second sentence adds essential usage details (save location, fill-in instructions, prerequisite). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, how to use it (save/fill), and a workflow hint (run check_compliance first). It doesn't discuss edge cases like unacceptable risk or all possible document types, but it covers the main usage adequately for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides a detailed description for risk_category ('EU AI Act risk category. Templates are most useful for high risk.'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds further meaning by specifying that 'High-risk systems get all 6 mandatory documents,' implying that different categories produce different outputs. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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's function: 'get pre-filled templates for risk management, technical documentation, transparency notice, and human oversight policy.' It also specifies the resource (templates) and scope (tailored to risk category, with high-risk systems receiving 'all 6 mandatory documents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_report or check_compliance.

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 explicitly tells the user to 'Run check_compliance() first to see which documents you're missing,' providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It implies usage for EU AI Act compliance template generation and differentiates from manual writing ('Stop writing compliance docs from scratch'), but it does not explicitly list alternative tools when not to use.

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