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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it extracts tables, can scope to a single element such as an annex, and returns data as header and rows. There is no annotation contradiction.

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 with the core action and resource. The only flaw is the trailing 'norm.' fragment, which appears to be a stray word and slightly weakens an otherwise tightly written definition.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, the fully described parameters, and the simple table-extraction behavior, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the 'header and rows' return description, though more detail about how multiple tables are returned would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the eid scope can target annex limit values or tariffs and that eli_version refers to a consolidation, which enriches the schema's dry parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Extract the tables'), a specific target ('a consolidation or of one element'), and the output form ('as header and rows'). It also clarifies the intended use case ('use when a norm is a table, not prose'), which distinguishes it from prose-reading siblings like fedlex.read_document.

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 gives an explicit usage cue: use it when a norm is a table rather than prose. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the when/when-not distinction is clear enough for an agent to decide between tabular extraction and ordinary text reading.

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