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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are sorted most-recent-adopted first, pagination is via limit and offset, no authentication is required, the data source is the European Parliament Open Data API v2 with CC BY 4.0, and the returned document IDs are meant to be used with eurlex.legislation.detail. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then return fields, filtering, ordering, cross-tool routing, pagination, and data-source/licensing context. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no filler or speculative 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?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail the full return structure, yet it still names key fields. It covers filters, default ordering, pagination controls, downstream EUR-Lex lookup, authentication status, and licensing. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly without further assumptions.

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 covers all three parameters with full descriptions, including defaults, min/max bounds, and the term 10 example. The description mostly restates schema content such as 'limit (max 100)', 'offset', and the parliamentary term filter; it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List legislative texts adopted (voted into law) by the European Parliament plenary.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from nearby siblings like eu_parliament.legislation.procedures and eurlex.legislation.detail by narrowing scope to plenary-adopted legislative texts. It also states exactly what is returned: document identifiers, adoption dates, parliamentary term, procedure references, and Eurovoc codes.

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 provides clear context for use: filter by parliamentary term with an explicit example (term 10 = 2024–2029), results are newest-first, and pagination is supported via limit/offset. It also routes the agent to the eurlex.legislation.detail tool for full-text lookups using the returned document ID. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool relative to other legislation search siblings, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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