check_prohibited_practices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool's behavior (checks input flags and returns violations with penalties and recommendations) and adds useful context about the penalty tier. It does not detail side effects (e.g., read-only, data retention), but for a check tool this is less critical and the return behavior is disclosed.

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-organized with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the key purpose, and includes only the penalty context needed for urgency. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 8 optional parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description fully defines all inputs and what to expect in return. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without over-explaining.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains every one of the 8 boolean parameters with clear meaning (e.g., 'uses_subliminal_techniques: Manipulates behavior via subliminal techniques'). This adds essential value beyond the raw schema, which only provides names and defaults.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if AI system violates prohibited practices under Article 5.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like classify_ai_system_risk or determine_eu_ai_act_role by focusing narrowly on Article 5 prohibited practices.

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 gives clear context: this tool checks for Article 5 violations, which are the highest-penalty offenses. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., classify_ai_system_risk) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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