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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: results are ordered by publication date descending, include a specific set of fields, and require no authentication. The 'English title (where available)' caveat also adds useful transparency about data variability.

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?

Four sentences deliver purpose, output ordering, returned fields, scope, defaults, data source, and auth status with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with a full input schema and output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how results are ordered, what document types are included, look-back defaults, and access requirements, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `days` and `limit` fully documented including defaults and bounds. The description repeats the days default and maximum but adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema, so 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: 'Get the most recently published EU legislative acts from EUR-Lex Cellar.' It clearly distinguishes 'recent' from sibling tools like eurlex.legislation.search, eurlex.legislation.detail, and eurlex.legislation.by_type by emphasizing recency, ordering, and scope.

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 when this tool is appropriate: it returns recent secondary EU legislation within a look-back window, and states the default and maximum range. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of the strictest standard.

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