eu_ai_act_timeline

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates a read-only informational tool that returns key dates and effects, but does not mention data recency, comprehensiveness, or return format. This is adequate for a simple timeline tool, but additional context (e.g., 'static reference' or 'covers all phases') would improve transparency.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Return') and resource ('EU AI Act enforcement timeline'), followed by a concise clarification of content ('key dates and what takes effect'), making it immediately understandable.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient to convey its purpose and expected content. It does not specify whether the output is a list, text, or the exact coverage of phases, but for a basic timeline retrieval tool, this is acceptable. Sibling tools don't require additional context for this descriptor.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The empty input schema already provides complete coverage, and the description appropriately adds no parameter details. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 specifies the tool's function: returning the EU AI Act enforcement timeline with key dates and their effects. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope (EU AI Act) distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_ai_system and explain_tier, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident from the name and description, and sibling tools handle classification, tier explanation, and crosswalks, so using this tool for timeline queries is implied. A more explicit note about when to prefer it over siblings would have raised the score.

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