get_eu_basis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the return payload (CELEX numbers, EUR-Lex links, reference types, primary implementation flag). It doesn't describe edge cases (e.g., empty results) but goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 sentences: the first states the core function, the second lists outputs, and the third mentions alternative tools. Front-loaded, no redundant words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description summarizes key return values (CELEX, links, reference types, primary implementation) and points to related tools. This is sufficient for a 3-parameter read-only tool, covering purpose, output, and alternatives comprehensively.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description mentions reference types (implements/references/supplements) which mirrors the schema, adding no new semantic information about parameters. It aligns with the reference_types filter but doesn't elaborate further.

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 'Get the EU legal basis (directives/regulations) for a Dutch statute' and lists specific return elements (CELEX numbers, EUR-Lex links, reference types, primary implementation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_provision_eu_basis (provision-level) and get_dutch_implementations (reverse lookup).

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use get_provision_eu_basis for provision-level EU references' and 'Use get_dutch_implementations for the reverse lookup.' This clarifies when to choose alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about this tool's niche.

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