validate_eu_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description explains the tool's behavior: it checks three specific aspects and returns compliance status. It also discloses the Phase 1 limitation, adding transparency about future enhancements. No destructive side effects are implied.

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 well-structured with bullet points and a note, but contains slight redundancy (Phase 1 mentioned twice). It is generally concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should detail return structure. It lists possible statuses and mentions warnings/recommendations, but lacks full detail on the response object. Given no annotations and 3 parameters, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds an example EU directive (95/46/EC) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. 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states the tool validates EU compliance for Danish statute/provision, listing specific checks like references to repealed directives. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_citation by focusing on EU compliance.

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 for validating EU compliance but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like get_eu_basis or check_currency. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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