eurlex_by_eurovoc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail: label resolution automatically falls back across all 24 official EU languages. This extra transparency is useful and does not contradict any annotations. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but none are expected for a read-only search.

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 paragraph that is concise yet informative. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a use case, an example, and a key behavior. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

The description provides enough context for a user to call the tool correctly. It mentions the concept input, language fallback, and the fact that it searches by EuroVoc. Since the context signals indicate an output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values. The description is complete for the tool's intended use.

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 schema covers all parameters (concept, language, resource_type, limit) with descriptions. The description adds clarifying examples ('artificial intelligence', a EuroVoc URI) and explains the language fallback behavior for the `language` parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, providing practical guidance on how to construct valid queries.

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: 'Searches EU legal acts by EuroVoc thematic concept'. It also gives a specific use case ('documents about X' when the term may not appear in the title) and provides a concrete example ('artificial intelligence'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools and leaves no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as 'the right tool for "documents about X" when the term may not appear in the title', giving a clear condition for use. It also explains the language fallback behavior, which helps the user understand how to supply the concept. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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