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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds useful context beyond them: it discloses the return fields (CELEX number, document date, resource type, EUR-Lex link) and the publisher-of-record nature. Minor tension worth noting: the prose says search is 'by title' while the query schema says it matches the 'Publications Office full-text index' — a small scope ambiguity, but not an annotation contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then the authority claim, then the routing rule. Dense but every clause adds routing value; slightly long with some marketing-style emphasis ("EVERY", "AUTHORITATIVE", "PREFER OVER") that could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. For a 5-param read-only search tool this is largely complete; the only residual gap is the title-vs-full-text scope ambiguity noted above.

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 100%, including a resource_type code list and ISO date formats, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (every document the Publications Office has issued — OJ acts, treaties, consolidated texts, COM proposals, CJEU judgments), and names the repository. It explicitly differentiates itself from the curated `eur-lex` pack, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ("AUTHORITATIVE for 'what has the EU published about X'") and a when-to-prefer-alternative ("PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for any question about EU legal or official documents"). It also names the sibling choice condition against the `eur-lex` pack.

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