assess_penalties

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits per tier, and no authentication required. This completely informs the agent of the tool's safety and constraints.

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 headings and bullet points, yet remains concise. Every sentence serves a purpose, providing necessary details 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 output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere) and the tool complexity (5 params), the description addresses all key aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and limitations. No gaps are identifiable.

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 'Args' section adds detailed meaning to each parameter: violation_type enum values, turnover usage, SME proportionality, caller identifier, and tier with limits. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Calculate') and resource ('potential EU AI Act penalties'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'audit_report' or 'check_compliance' by focusing on penalty calculation. It leaves no doubt about the tool's function.

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. It advises using for compliance assessment and gap analysis, and warns against substituting for legal counsel, offering decisive guidance for appropriate use.

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