eu_llm_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that access is free and that output covers limits and data-handling policy. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or freshness/stability of the model list.

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?

A single front-loaded noun phrase covers the whole tool with no filler. The duplicated '(free) (free)' suffix is sloppy noise that should have been cleaned up.

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 no-argument, no-output-schema informational tool, the description states the scope of returned content adequately. It is missing only the connective guidance about its relationship to the EU inference siblings eu_chat and eu_embed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax for the description to explain. Nothing misleading is present regarding inputs.

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 names a specific resource set — models, limits, and data-handling policy — scoped to the 'EU inference lane', which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like eu_chat and eu_embed. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists'), but the content an agent would receive is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus eu_chat, eu_embed, or the non-EU inference path. The agent must infer that this is a metadata/introspection call to run before or alongside the EU inference tools; no preconditions or alternatives are given.

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