sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it lists exactly what data is returned (acts, CELEX, amendments since 2024, date checked, licence, attribution) and adds a critical caveat that member-state measures are 'not proof of complete transposition.' It stops short of stating explicitly that this is a side-effect-free read, which would be the final behavioral detail.

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 compact and front-loads the default output before the conditional member_state behavior. The colon-separated lists are dense but each item is meaningful; no wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential return content for both default and member_state cases, plus a scope limit (since 2024) and caveat. It is nearly complete, missing only an explicit statement of the operation's read-only nature.

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%, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema's 'Two-letter code' by explaining what providing member_state changes: it returns national notification measures and their legal forms in Annexes I and II, with a caveat about completeness.

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 states the resource clearly: it returns the legal basis (acts, CELEX numbers, consolidated versions, amendments, etc.) and, with member_state, national measures. No verb is present, but an agent can infer a retrieval operation. It does not mention any sibling tool, so it loses the differentiation point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus timeline, csrd_scope, or thresholds. The only conditional described is parameter behavior (with member_state), not tool-selection context.

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