eurlex_citations

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: how the limit is divided for 'both' direction, the non-backfilling behavior, and the existence of a 'counts' field in the response. This goes beyond 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 concise yet informative, front-loading the core purpose and then providing essential behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers all necessary behavioral nuances, especially the non-obvious balanced split behavior. It is complete for an AI agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly for the 'direction' and 'limit' parameters, explaining how they interact in the 'both' case. This elevates it above baseline.

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 explicitly states it finds citation relationships for an EU legal act, listing specific relationship types (cites, cited_by, amends, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eurlex_search or eurlex_metadata.

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 provides clear usage context, especially for the 'direction' parameter, explaining the balanced split behavior and its implications. It does not mention alternative tools for when to use this versus others, but among siblings there is no direct alternative for citations.

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