search_eu_implementations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core function without disclosing behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or results ordering. For a search tool with multiple filters, basic behavioral context (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity) is missing.

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 with two sentences, no redundant words, and the main action is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on return format, pagination, or what 'Swedish implementation info' means. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a tool with multiple filters.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder understanding but also does not enhance it.

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 searches EU directives/regulations with Swedish implementation info, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('EU directives/regulations'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_swedish_implementations' by deferring specific details to that tool.

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 provides clear context by naming an alternative tool ('Use get_swedish_implementations for specific EU document details'), helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus the sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or cover other siblings.

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