get_provision_eu_basis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the return type (EU directives/regulations) and precision (article-level), and gives an example. It does not disclose edge cases like missing provisions or error behavior, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the main behavior is adequately disclosed. A minor gap is lack of mention of potential failures.

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, with clear structure: purpose, return, usage, and exclusion. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and provides an example. It differentiates from the sibling tool. It does not detail the exact structure of the return or error handling, but for a focused retrieval tool, it is largely complete. A 4 reflects that it could be slightly richer on return format but is sufficient.

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% so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds an example ('DSL 2:1 references GDPR Article 6.1.c') that illustrates how the provision_ref maps to the EU source, which is helpful beyond the schema. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get EU legal basis for a specific provision within a Finnish statute.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_eu_basis by focusing on provision-level vs statute-level. The example further clarifies the scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for pinpoint EU compliance checks at the provision level.' It also states when NOT to use and names the alternative tool (get_eu_basis), leaving no ambiguity.

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