record_authority_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses confidentiality behavior (provided contains only references, never content) and defines scope, but it does not describe side effects such as persistence, immutability, confirmation, or required permissions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, scope semantics, and provided-content confidentiality. The formatting with backticked parameter names keeps it scannable without fluff.

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 9-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the critical legal and confidentiality constraints but leaves gaps around return value, validation, timestamp semantics, and how this record relates to other compliance tools like record_disclosure or oversight_report.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully expains the two ambiguous parameters: scope maps to documentation(21(1)) logs(21(2)) or both, and provided must be {item, sha256} references. The other parameters are largely self-explanatory from their names and required set.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: record a reasoned request from a competent authority under EU AI Act Art. 21, including what was handed over. This is clearly distinct from the many record_ incident/risk/corrective sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a competent authority makes a formal request and material is provided. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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