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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds that the search is via SPARQL, explicitly lists what it returns (CELEX numbers and links), and implies read-only behavior through 'search.' This goes beyond the bare schema, though it does not discuss potential pagination or filtering nuances.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by scope and output details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the main purpose, document types, and return values, which is sufficient for a simple search tool with only two optional parameters. It does not explain sorting or error handling, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The absence of an output schema makes the explicit mention of CELEX numbers and links particularly useful.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, but the description adds value by providing concrete search-term examples ('Markets in Crypto', 'Digital Operational Resilience') that illustrate expected query formats. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches EU legislation via EUR-Lex SPARQL, specifies relevant document types (regulations, directives, decisions), and notes the output (CELEX numbers and links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like court_opinion_search or federal_register_search.

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 usage for keyword-based EU legislation searches and gives concrete query examples, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides clear context but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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