which_article_50_rules_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool returns relevant sub-rules and use_case keys, and implies it is a computational classification without side effects. No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple boolean-input tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately explains output and purpose. Lack of output schema is mitigated by describing return values (sub-rules and keys). Minor gap: no detail on output format or edge cases.

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 only references inputs as 'a few yes/no facts' without adding new meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter 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 the verb 'Work out', the resource 'Article 50 transparency duties', and the input type (yes/no facts). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool by mentioning the output feeds into article_50_disclosure, making purpose and differentiation clear.

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 when determining applicable transparency duties based on facts, and suggests a workflow by stating output keys feed into article_50_disclosure. However, no explicit when-not or alternative scenarios are provided.

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