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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that VITNA 'evaluates and records, it does not gate the build,' which is a key trait for a classification tool. It also discloses the outputs (risk tier, obligations). However, it does not mention any side effects beyond recording, or any limits on use, so it is not a 5.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: the trigger context, the input/output procedure, and a clarifying note about non-gating behavior. It is front-loaded with when to use it, and no sentence is wasted. It is slightly dense but appropriately concise.

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 purpose, key input types, and output categories, but it does not detail the output structure or how the flags affect the classification. Since there is no output schema, more explanation of the return format would help an agent interpret the result. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with 8 parameters and no structured output definition.

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 schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially by naming the boolean flags (biometric, remote-identification, automated-decisions, social-scoring, GPAI) and instructing the user to include them. However, the 'sectors' and 'data_categories' arrays are left unexplained, and the exact impact of each flag on the classification is not detailed. It adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to classify an AI use case under the EU AI Act and return the risk tier, GPAI obligations, and per-tier obligations. It uses a specific verb ('check', 'returns') and resource ('EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689)'), and it is distinct from sibling tools that handle breach classification, consent, or other compliance checks.

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 explicit timing for use ('Before you build or ship an AI feature') and instructs how to describe the use case with specific flags. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate, especially given the sibling tool set.

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