quick_scan

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only, stateless, idempotent, rate limits (10/day free), no auth required, error handling, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering behavior, usage, and limitations without redundancy. Length is justified by the wealth of useful information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains behavior and usage thoroughly. However, it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., returns a risk class and list of obligations), which could help the agent understand what to expect.

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?

Input schema has 0% coverage for the single parameter. The description adds that it expects a 'One-sentence AI system description', which is helpful but could be more detailed (e.g., suggest format or provide examples). Still, it compensates significantly for the schema gap.

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 performs 'instant EU AI Act risk classification and top obligations' from a one-sentence AI system description. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like classify_ai_risk (likely more detailed) and check_compliance.

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 are provided. It specifies ideal use cases (gap analysis, readiness checks) and warns against substituting for legal counsel. This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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