validate_eu_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return values (compliance status with warnings and recommendations) and the Phase 1 limitation, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it makes external calls, or what happens when the statute isn't found. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of checks, return value summary, a phase note, and a 'When NOT to use' section. It's slightly longer than necessary but every section earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, return values, and limitations. It could be more complete by mentioning error behavior or whether the tool is read-only, but given the schema covers parameters and the description covers the core behavior, it's 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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about what the tool checks (repealed directives, missing implementation status) which helps interpret the eu_document_id parameter, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 ('Validate') and resource ('EU compliance status for a Finnish statute or provision'), and lists concrete checks (repealed directives, missing implementation status, outdated references). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_eu_basis by explicitly saying it assesses compliance status rather than doing basic reference lookup.

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 explicitly says 'When NOT to use' and names the alternative tool (get_eu_basis) for basic EU reference lookup. It also clarifies this is Phase 1 validation, setting expectations about scope. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding between tools.

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