Get exact EU-law recitals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that recitals are 'selected' and 'source-numbered,' which clarifies the scope of retrieval, but does not describe error handling or version behavior. This adds some value but not rich 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 wasted words, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for the task.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description leaves the input parameters ambiguous—what a 'document' is, how to specify 'version' options, and the meaning of 'language' are unexplained. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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 only hints at 'selected' recitals but does not explain the format of the 'recitals' parameter, the meaning of 'document', or valid 'version' values. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's structural constraints.

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 ('selected, source-numbered recitals from an official EU legal text'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_article or search_eu_law. It is unambiguous about what is returned and the source.

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 alternatives. It does not mention search_eu_law for finding recitals or get_article for related articles, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone. No exclusions or contextual cues are given.

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