Get EU legal document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of 'exact official language/version' but does not elaborate on behavior such as default parameters or error handling. Since annotations carry the burden, score 3 is appropriate—the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the core action and object. However, it is so terse that it skips necessary usage details, but for conciseness and structure itself, it is well-organized. A 4 acknowledges its efficiency while flagging that brevity reduces completeness.

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 rich annotations, the description fails to explain how to construct the identifier, what defaults apply for language/version, or any edge-case behavior. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional context. The tool is moderately complex (3 parameters, version constraints), and the description offers only a high-level intent, making it incomplete for real-world use.

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 compensate. It hints that language and version play a role in selecting the exact document, but it omits details about identifier format (e.g., CELEX number) and allowed version values. The schema provides constraints (original/current_consolidated/date) but no narrative, and the description does not fill that gap, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate parameters.

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 verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('an exact official language/version of an EU legal act'), and the method ('by deterministic identifier'). This distinguishes it from search or article-level tools, and the phrase 'exact official language/version' conveys precision beyond generic retrieval.

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 the tool is used when you have a deterministic identifier, which differentiates it from search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The condition 'by deterministic identifier' gives clear context but no exclusions, so it's slightly above mediocre.

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