get_eu_basis

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns all relevant directives/regulations, lists the included data (reference types, article citations, primary-implementation flag), and implies a read-only lookup. It does not cover errors, pagination, or permission requirements, but for a simple GET-style tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, return contents follow, and exclusions are placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place; the when-not-to-use section is particularly high-value.

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 low-complexity 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the return contents, the expected input (with schema example), and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke it is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sfs_number, reference_types, and include_articles. The description mentions reference types and article citations in the return value, which loosely aligns with parameters, but it does not add new semantic detail about how to use them. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get EU legal basis (directives and regulations) for a Finnish statute.' It then clarifies the exact return scope (directives/regulations the statute implements, supplements, or references), and differentiates from siblings by naming get_provision_eu_basis and get_finnish_implementations.

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?

An explicit 'When NOT to use' section names the two alternatives and the exact conditions for choosing them: provision-level references go to get_provision_eu_basis, and Finnish laws implementing EU law go to get_finnish_implementations. This gives an agent decisive routing guidance.

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