search_eu_implementations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return type ('matching EU documents with counts'), but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or authentication. The behavioral disclosure is adequate 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 at three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, filter summary, and usage example. No 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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and usage but fails to specify the output structure (e.g., is it a list? paginated? what fields are returned?). It partially describes return type but lacks full completeness.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description repeats the filter options ('by keyword, type, year range, or community') without adding significant new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: searching for EU directives and regulations with Danish implementation information. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like search_case_law or get_danish_implementations by focusing on EU documents with implementation counts.

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 a clear usage example ('Use this for exploratory searches like 'data protection' or 'privacy''), indicating appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools.

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