Cerca Legge Ue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents (relevant acts with CELEX, title, and EUR-Lex link) and the search source (EUR-Lex), but does not mention whether it is read-only, pagination, or error behavior. For a search tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return type and use case. No wasted words; examples are concise and illustrative.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, search action, output schema exists), the description covers what the tool does, its parameter, its returns, and when to use it. It lacks details like result limits or error handling, but these are likely covered by the output schema and not critical for a search tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'argomento' through context ('per argomento') and examples ('protezione dei dati', 'intelligenza artificiale', 'rifiuti'). This gives the agent sufficient understanding of the expected input.

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 searches EU legislation (regulations, directives, decisions) by topic via EUR-Lex. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cerca_sentenze_ue' by explicitly targeting normative acts, not case law, and from 'cerca_legge' by specifying EU law.

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 explicit context for when to use it: 'Usa per il diritto UE o quando serve la base normativa europea' with examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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