list_pillars

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

A dedicated 'Behavioral Transparency' section covers side effects (read-only), authentication (none for basic), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden and does so excellently.

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, front-loading the purpose and behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (list pillars) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, its behavioral characteristics, and usage context. No gaps remain.

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 only parameter 'api_key' has schema coverage 0%, and the description merely restates it: 'The api key to analyze or process.' It does not explain when to provide it or its effect, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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: 'List all 5 DORA pillars with article ranges and key obligations.' This is a specific verb (list) and resource (DORA pillars), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_all_pillars or classify_entity.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear context: assessing, auditing, verifying compliance, gap analysis, and not for legal advice. No direct alternative mention, but siblings differentiate.

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