validate_eu_compliance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds behavioral context by stating it returns compliance issues with severity levels and recommendations in Dutch. No contradictions, and the description does not promise any destructive actions.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: main function, output format, and usage order. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return value (compliance issues with severity levels and recommendations). It also covers the optional narrowing and the prerequisite relationship with get_eu_basis, making it sufficiently complete.

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% for all three parameters. The description adds semantic value by noting the optional narrowing to a specific provision or EU document, reinforcing the purpose of provision_ref and eu_document_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource 'EU compliance for a Dutch statute'. It further specifies the nature of checks (missing, partial, or outdated implementations) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_eu_basis by focusing on validation rather than retrieval.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_eu_basis first to see what EU instruments apply.' It also states optional narrowing with provision_ref and eu_document_id, making it clear when to use this tool versus others.

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