Obligations navigator

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: deterministic with 'no language model,' coverage of the consolidated text from 2026-07-27, dates derived from Article 113 plus the Annex I/III classification route, the applies_from_literal caveat when the literal rule diverges, and an explicit boundary that it flags but does not perform legal assessments.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core behavior in sentence one, and each subsequent sentence earns its place (classification route, caveat handling, coverage date, determinism, legal boundary). It is dense with legal/technical terms but appropriately sized with no filler.

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 a 4-parameter tool with a deeply nested profile object and no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates what the response carries (citation, verbatim quotation, application date on as_of, legal-assessment notes) and the conditional applies_from_literal field. It stops short of describing response structure or error/edge behavior in detail, but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 the parameters and every nested profile field are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only light framing ('application date on as_of', the classification route affecting dates) and does not deepen the enumerated profile flags.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+input: 'For a company profile, returns the applicable and upcoming obligations of the AI Act with citation, verbatim quotation, application date.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aiact_get_provision or aiact_search, which do not take a company profile and map it to obligations.

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?

'For a company profile' implies the usage context, but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings such as aiact_get_provision or aiact_search, nor any when-not conditions. The 'Orientation only, not legal advice' line is a scope disclaimer rather than routing guidance, leaving alternatives to inference.

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