check_applicability

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context about 'optimal response length' controlling output size. However, with no output schema provided, the description fails to disclose what the tool returns (e.g., list of regulations, applicability scores, compliance gaps).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes core purpose; second sentence adds the distinctive feature (tiered detail levels). Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the description adequately covers inputs. However, given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of EU regulatory applicability, the description should specify the return format (e.g., structured list of regulations with applicability reasoning). Sibling context is also absent.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. Description adds conceptual grouping ('sector and characteristics') and explains the purpose of detail_level ('optimal response length'), but doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., that subsector depends on sector) or provide format examples beyond schema enums.

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?

Clear verb 'Determine' with specific resource 'EU regulations' and scope 'based on sector and characteristics'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_article or list_regulations by focusing on applicability determination rather than retrieval. However, lacks explicit contrast with search_regulations or list_regulations which also deal with regulation discovery.

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?

Implies usage through explanation of 'tiered detail levels' (suggesting when to use summary vs full), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like search_regulations or list_regulations. No mention of prerequisites or required context.

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