Get exact EU-law article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds beyond that: it specifies the structural exactness ('including numbered paragraphs and points') and the authoritative source ('official CELLAR XHTML'), which are not covered by annotations and are useful for callers.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds key qualifiers. It is appropriately concise, though it could have incorporated parameter guidance without losing brevity.

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?

With four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description must compensate but does not. It fails to clarify what each parameter represents (e.g., article numbering format, document identifier type, version options). Even though an output schema exists, the absence of parameter semantics makes the tool incomplete for reliable 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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (document, article, version, language). It does not explain the expected format for article identifiers, version values, or language codes, leaving agents without sufficient guidance to construct valid calls.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one structurally exact article') with qualifiers ('including numbered paragraphs and points', 'from official CELLAR XHTML') that clearly distinguish it from siblings like search_eu_law or get_eu_document. It leaves no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 implies usage—retrieving a single exact article—but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like search_eu_law or get_provision_at_date. It provides no exclusions or explicit context, though the phrasing implies a distinct purpose.

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