search_eu_implementations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns matching documents with counts of Finnish statutes referencing them, which is a key behavioral detail. It doesn't mention pagination or default limit, but that's covered in schema; a small gap is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place. It's structured effectively for quick scanning.

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?

The tool is a filterable search with 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, typical use, and alternatives, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It doesn't detail return format but given all parameters are optional and schema covers them, this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just that the search can be by 'keyword, type, year range, or community' which is a useful summary but not essential. 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('EU directives and regulations'), and scope ('with Finnish implementation information'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_finnish_implementations by mentioning that this is for exploratory searches and returns counts of Finnish statutes.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use this for exploratory searches'), and explicitly states when NOT to use it and which alternative to use ('get_finnish_implementations for direct lookup'). This is excellent routing.

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