eurlex_fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: identifier resolution via Cellar, pagination mechanics, and output format options, which go beyond the annotations and fully inform the agent about behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and then covering identifier options and pagination in a compact, readable format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of schema fields. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers all aspects: identifier selection, output format, language, pagination, and the resolution mechanism. No gaps remain for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the identifier formats with examples (e.g., '32024R1689', 'reg/2016/679', 'OJ:L_202401689'), pagination parameters (offset, max_chars), format enum (xhtml/plain), and language codes. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 fetches the full text of an EU legal act, specifies the three identifier types (celex_id, eli, oj_ref), and distinguishes itself from siblings like eurlex_metadata or eurlex_summary by focusing on full-text retrieval.

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 explains how to identify the act (provide exactly one identifier) and how to paginate (offset, max_chars, next_offset). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for metadata use eurlex_metadata) or what alternatives exist, though this is implied by sibling context.

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