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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns certain types of information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention read-only status, required parameters, or limitations. It adds some value beyond a bare name but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words that front-loads the primary action and scope. Every phrase adds meaning. No filler or duplication.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description lists return types but not structure. It also does not address the fact that both parameters are optional (required params = 0) or explain how to use them together. Given the tool's narrow scope, the description is adequate but incomplete for edge cases.

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%; both parameters ('article', 'regulation') are already documented with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema handles semantics fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('extraction') with a clear resource ('EU regulations') and scope (DORA, MiCA, AMLR). It states what is returned (obligations, delegated acts, cross-jurisdiction equivalents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like eurlex_search (search) and de_law_lookup.

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 implies use for article-level extraction from EU regulations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is mentioned for comparison.

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