get_eu_basis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return content (reference types, article citations, primary implementation flag) but does not disclose potential large response size, error handling, or read-only nature. Some behavioral context is present, but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a front-loaded first sentence stating the purpose. It uses three sentences to convey purpose, return details, and importance without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the return value (EU directives/regulations with reference types and article citations). However, it does not address edge cases, error scenarios, or distinguish between related siblings, leaving some gaps for complete decision-making.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for full schema coverage.

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 it retrieves EU legal basis for a Danish statute, with specifics on returned data (directives, regulations, reference types, article citations). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_provision_eu_basis' by focusing on statutes rather than provisions, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 when needing EU legal basis for a Danish statute, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_provision_eu_basis' or 'search_eu_implementations'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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