get_danish_implementations

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns relevant statutes with status and article references. No side effects or auth needs mentioned, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is adequate.

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?

Three short paragraphs with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose clearly, example follows, and a concluding sentence emphasizes value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description outlines return content (statutes, status, article references) but lacks specifics on structure, pagination, or error handling. Adequate for a moderate-complexity tool but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the 'eu_document_id' parameter with an example but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 finds Danish statutes implementing EU directives/regulations, with a specific example and details on return content. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_eu_implementations' by focusing on Danish law.

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?

Provides context for when to use ('essential for finding Danish law corresponding to EU requirements') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Still clear enough for an agent.

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