eu_harmonised_standards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'returns' standards but does not mention any behavioral traits such as data freshness, authentication, rate limits, or whether results are filtered. This lack of transparency may lead the agent to assume generic read behavior without additional context.

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, directly stating the purpose and scope without any unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 straightforward nature of the tool (a lookup with two enum parameters) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format or any limitations, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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%, with clearly defined enum parameters. The description adds value by linking the parameters to the context of EU harmonised standards and RED/EMCD, but it does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings or combinations. This meets the baseline for high coverage without adding much additional semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('EU harmonised standards'), specifying the context ('for a product type or technology') and the domain ('under RED/EMCD'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on EU harmonised standards for EMC, radio, and safety.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for EU harmonised standards related to RED/EMCD) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. Given the presence of many sibling tools with overlapping domains, a brief note on alternatives would improve clarity.

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