eurlex_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds significant behavioral context: output includes summary text plus metadata (LEGISSUM id, title, last-update, obsolete flag, source_url), pagination mechanism via max_chars/offset, handling of multiple summaries (returns most current non-obsolete), and availability across languages. No contradictions.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then input, output, pagination, and comparison to siblings. Every sentence provides useful information, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. Minor redundancy in explaining pagination.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, enum, pagination), the description is highly complete. It covers input format, output fields, pagination behavior, handling of multiple summaries, and availability. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for description of return values, but the description already provides rich context.

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 value beyond schema by explaining that summaries are usually available in all languages, that pagination works like eurlex_fetch, and that the celex_id pattern is given with examples. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 it returns the EU's official plain-language summary (LEGISSUM), not the binding legal text. It provides examples (GDPR, Digital Services Act) and distinguishes from siblings eurlex_fetch and 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 explains when to use this tool (to get a plain-language summary) and explicitly compares it to eurlex_fetch for full legal text and eurlex_metadata for structured metadata. It notes that many acts have no summary, guiding users. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the comparisons suffice.

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