eurlex_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real operational context: broad single-word terms can be slow, and results are newest-first only within the fetched sample rather than globally newest — a caveat that materially affects how an agent interprets results.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core verb and matching model come first, then alternatives, then performance and ordering caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the single paragraph is close to overloaded for one breath.

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?

For a 6-parameter filtered search with a full output schema, the description covers the matching semantics, language pairing, performance expectations, and result-ordering limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 goes beyond it by clarifying that query is a contiguous phrase rather than tokenized full-text, and by warning that the language code must match the query term — a non-obvious constraint not stated in 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Searches EU legal acts by title substring') and immediately qualifies the matching model (contiguous phrase, case-insensitive, not tokenized). It is clearly distinguishable from eurlex_by_eurovoc, which is named as the topic-discovery sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes topic-based discovery to eurlex_by_eurovoc and gives concrete narrowing levers (resource_type, date_from/date_to) for slow broad terms. The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both present.

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