get_finnish_implementations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns all Finnish statutes that implement, supplement, or reference it' and that it 'Shows implementation status and which articles are referenced,' giving concrete insight into the output. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but as a read-only search tool this is acceptable. It adds value beyond the schema by describing the returned information.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, provides an example, and then includes a 'When NOT to use' note that directs to a sibling. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (statutes with implementation status and referenced articles). It covers the direction of the query, the input format, and the alternative tool for the opposite case. The tool is simple enough that no additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds an example for eu_document_id ('regulation:2016/679') and implies the purpose of the boolean filters, but these are already present in the schema. The description does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: finding Finnish statutes that implement a specific EU directive or regulation. It provides a concrete example ('regulation:2016/679') and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_eu_basis by noting the opposite direction. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings.

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 includes a 'When NOT to use' section that explicitly tells the agent to use get_eu_basis for the reverse direction. It also states the tool is 'Essential for finding Finnish law corresponding to EU requirements,' providing clear context on when to apply it. This is explicit guidance with no ambiguity.

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