article_50_disclosure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (visible label, where/when to show, implementation snippet) and mentions coverage of specific paragraphs, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a generation tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for returns) could improve scannability, but it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (visible label, where/when to show, implementation snippet). It covers all four parameters and references specific sub-sections (50(1)-50(4)). No output schema or nested objects, so the description provides sufficient completeness for this tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company and model are used for the machine-readable marker and lists the use case categories and language codes contextually, going beyond the 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 clearly states the tool generates the exact EU AI Act Article 50 transparency disclosure for a given use case and language, listing covered categories. It distinguishes from the sibling tool which_article_50_rules_apply but could be more explicit about the exact distinction.

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 implies usage by stating 'for a given use case and language' and listing what it covers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling or provide exclusions. The sibling tool name suggests a complementary role, but no direct comparison is given.

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