build_eu_cra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it maps requirements to evidence and explicitly surfaces open findings rather than silently passing. However, it never says whether the report is merely computed and returned or persisted, whether missing receipts degrade the result, or what an 'open finding' looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and regulation, then the mapping behavior, then the findings output. No filler or repetition.

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 four-parameter tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and evidence-mapping but omits the report's return shape and ignores two of the four parameters. An agent knows what it gets conceptually but not structurally.

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 schema already documents scope, receipts, residualRisks, and implementationStatus. The description reinforces the receipt-to-evidence relationship but adds no format or constraint detail for residualRisks or implementationStatus, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Build an EU Cyber Resilience Act compliance report') and names the exact regulation (EU 2024/2847), which cleanly separates it from the other build_* compliance siblings. The follow-up sentences define the report's content (Annex I requirements, Article 13/14 obligations, receipt-derived evidence, open findings).

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 phrase 'from a VAOS receipt set' implies the precondition (you must already hold receipts) but never states when to choose this over build_annex_iv, build_gdpr_dpia, or other build_* siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the named regulation rather than explicitly guided.

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