eurlex_by_eurovoc

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it accepts labels or URIs, performs automatic language fallback across all 24 EU languages, and searches by concept rather than exact string match. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 existence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and rich annotations, the description covers core functionality, input formats, and language fallback. It hints at differentiation from siblings via the 'right tool' statement but does not fully contrast with all sibling tools. Overall, it is complete for a search tool with this parameter set.

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 meaningful context for the 'concept' parameter by explaining it accepts labels or URIs and that label resolution falls back across languages. This goes beyond the schema's description. Other parameters (limit, language, resource_type) are not elaborated but schema already covers them well.

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 searches EU legal acts by EuroVoc thematic concept. It distinguishes itself as the right tool when the term may not appear in the title, contrasting with potential title-based searches. The verb 'searches' is specific and the resource 'EU legal acts by EuroVoc concept' is well-defined.

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 indicates when to use this tool ('documents about X' when term not in title) and provides context on language fallback. It implies it is not for title-based searches but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Overall, usage context is clear.

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