classify_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers a thorough 'Behavioral Transparency' section covering side effects (read-only), authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This exceeds expectations.

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 clear sections (Behavior, When to use, Args, Behavioral Transparency). Slightly verbose but each section earns its place. Could be shorter by merging some parts, but overall acceptable.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and usage. No gaps identified.

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 0%, but the description barely adds to parameter meaning. For product_description, it only says 'to analyze or process', which is vague and restates the name. api_key similarly generic. No examples or format hints. Should provide more context for a 0% coverage tool.

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 explicitly states the tool classifies a product with digital elements (PDE) into its CRA class and returns the conformity assessment path and essential requirements scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_annex_i or conformity_assessment_roadmap.

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 dedicated 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, guiding the agent to use the tool for compliance assessment, gap analysis, and documentation generation, while cautioning against substituting for legal advice.

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