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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds return map details but no additional behavioral traits like error handling or authorization. With strong annotations, the description's extra context is moderate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the core action, second provides usage guidance and return summary. No unnecessary words, front-loaded purpose.

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 lookup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent: what it returns (map of EU corpus with CELEX ids, types, dates, summaries), how to use it (with or without query), and its role in the workflow. No missing information given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers the single optional 'query' parameter with examples. The description adds 'name/alias/keyword' clarification and omission behavior, but this is marginal given 100% schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves a common EU regulation name to its CELEX id, a specific verb+resource pair. It also describes the returned map with details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_legislation or get_article which operate on different granularity.

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 says 'Use this first to turn a name like 'GDPR' into the CELEX id the other tools need,' providing clear guidance on when to use it as a prerequisite. It also explains the optional filter behavior ('Omit to list the whole corpus').

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