Get EDPB document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance: it preserves visible numbered paragraphs only 'where extractable', which implies extraction limitations. However, it doesn't discuss what happens when extraction fails, how the output is formatted (beyond the output schema), or any dependency on URL formats. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, tight sentence that fronts the main verb and resource. It packs a specific detail (preserve numbered paragraphs where extractable) with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations that cover the operational profile, the description omits essential parameter information and fails to give any sense of what constitutes a valid identifier_or_url or language value. For a tool that retrieves documents, this is a substantial gap. The preservation caveat is nice but doesn't compensate for the missing param semantics or any mention of input constraints.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for identifier_or_url or language. The tool description completely ignores both parameters—it doesn't explain what format identifier_or_url should take (e.g., a URL or a document ID) or what language codes are accepted. Since the schema gives zero guidance and the description adds none, the agent is left to guess parameter semantics. This is a serious deficiency.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('official EDPB PDF'), and adds a distinctive detail about preserving visible numbered paragraphs. This clearly distinguishes it from generic EU document retrievers, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_eu_document or search_edpb_documents. That's a minor gap, keeping it from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many siblings (e.g., search_edpb_documents, get_article, get_recitals). It doesn't state prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives. The context signals show a rich sibling set, so a clear routing statement is warranted but absent.

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