get_provision_eu_basis

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description adds value by specifying that it shows EU directive/regulation articles and that it returns empty results if no EU references exist. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the return behavior and the nature of the references.

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 three sentences with no fluff: purpose, granularity comparison, and empty-result behavior. Each sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it returns, how it differs from the sibling, and the empty-results edge case. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying 'specific provision', which is already captured in the provision_ref parameter description. 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 gets EU references for a specific provision in a Dutch statute, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_eu_basis by noting it is more granular (provision-level vs statute-level), which differentiates it from the most similar sibling.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when provision-level EU references are needed, as opposed to statute-level via get_eu_basis. It names the alternative tool, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead' or list other exclusions. This is strong comparative guidance, but not perfectly explicit.

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