Get EU court document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait that paragraph numbering is preserved, which is useful for downstream tasks, but it does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or limitations. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action. It is efficient, though it omits necessary parameter guidance. The structure is good for the limited content it provides.

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 3 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, and a large sibling set, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to supply the identifier, the role of document_type, or when this tool is preferable over its many siblings. Even though an output schema exists, the input guidance is missing.

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%, so the description must explain parameter semantics, but it gives none. It does not clarify what 'identifier' refers to (e.g., case number, CELEX number), what 'language' options are, or what the allowed values of 'document_type' mean. The description adds no value over the raw schema.

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 clear action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('an exact official EU court document'), and adds a distinctive feature ('source paragraph numbering preserved'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_eu_document or get_case_paragraphs, which likely overlap in purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_eu_cases or get_eu_document. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given query.

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