What an AI agent must disclose, and what it need not

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a useful behavioral signal, 'Offline,' indicating no live retrieval, and clarifies the scope includes both positive dimensions and negative exclusions. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with useful exclusion examples and no filler. The standalone 'Offline' fragment could be integrated more smoothly, but the overall length and organization are efficient.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only reference tool, the description adequately conveys what the taxonomy contains: six disclosure dimensions, negative scope, and illustrative excluded items. It does not state the return format, but the static, offline nature makes this a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.

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 names concrete content: the six Article 50(1) disclosure dimensions and the negative scope of what is not covered, with specific examples. It is clearly a taxonomy/reference tool, distinguishable from siblings like classify or explain_obligation, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as explain_obligation, generate_disclosure, or discover_ai_surfaces. The content implies a reference lookup, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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