explain_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the explanation covers (meaning, obligations, deadline), setting expectations for the response content. However, it does not describe output format or limitations, but for a simple explanation tool this is largely sufficient.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Explain', and directly states the tool's core purpose and content areas. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 (one enum parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully captures what the tool does and what it returns. It explicitly lists the three content areas covered, making it adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents the 'tier' parameter and its enum values. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('single' implies one tier at a time), but it does not elaborate on each enum value's semantics, which the schema already enumerates.

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's function: explaining a single EU AI Act risk tier in detail, including meaning, obligations, and deadline. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify_ai_system (classification), eu_ai_act_timeline (timeline), and framework_crosswalk (mapping).

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 phrase 'a single...risk tier' clarifies the scope and suggests use when deep-diving into one tier. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the sibling tools indicate related but different purposes.

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