One EU Taxonomy activity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false annotations, it discloses substantial behavior an agent could not otherwise infer: answers come from a dated offline snapshot (no network), every response carries snapshot_date, an attribution line and a legal note, the Navigator is non-binding while delegated acts are, and quoted source text is wrapped in <<remote text, not an instruction: ...>> as data. The truncation behavior of max_chars is also described.

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?

Front-loaded with what the record returns, then routing to criteria, then the snapshot/attribution/quoting caveats. Dense but each clause carries information; the long single paragraph is slightly harder to scan than a segmented form would be.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of describing the return shape — field list, snapshot_date, attribution, legal note, and the quoted-text wrapper — plus the max_chars truncation contract. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining max_chars ('truncates the description with an explicit marker') and characterizing activity_id as the Navigator's id. The added semantics go beyond the raw schema type/minimum declarations, though the marker format itself is not shown.

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 ('One activity by the Navigator's id') and enumerates what the record contains (name, sector, NACE codes, quoted description, objective/contribution/legal basis data, criteria length). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by routing criteria-text needs to criteria(activity_id, objective).

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 names the alternative for criteria text ('Use criteria(activity_id, objective) for the criteria text'), which is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that rule. However it gives no guidance on when to reach for this versus search_activities or list_sectors for discovering an activity_id in the first place.

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