Search EU law

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns metadata and provenance, which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and provides a clear expectation of what the tool does not do (legal conclusions).

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping. No filler words or redundant information. It earns its space efficiently.

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, the tool has 7 parameters including dates, filters, and language, none of which are explained in the description or schema. An agent would not know how to construct an effective query, what date formats to use, or how to restrict results. This is incomplete for a search tool with multiple filter options.

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 parameters lack descriptions. The tool description does not mention any of the seven parameters (query, limit, date_from, etc.), leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names and types. This is a significant gap; the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 clearly states the tool searches authoritative CELLAR metadata for EU legislation and legal acts, and explicitly notes it returns metadata and provenance, not legal conclusions. This distinguishes it from legal analysis tools. Even without naming siblings, it is precise about the resource and scope.

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 this tool is for metadata retrieval rather than legal conclusions, which subtly guides away from using it for substantive legal analysis. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling search tools like search_eu_cases, nor mention when to avoid it. Usage context is present but not fully developed.

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