Explain EU AI Act obligations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the tool works offline and returns obligations with Article citations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The one-word sentence 'Offline.' is concise and communicates an important operational trait without waste.

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?

Given a simple 2-enum-param tool with complete schema and read-only annotations, the description adequately describes the output shape (list with Article citations) and the offline nature. Return ordering/format are unspecified, but no output schema exists, so this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with rich descriptions for 'role' and 'risk' including the classify-tool pipeline. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'List the EU AI Act obligations for a role + risk tier', using the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'EU AI Act obligations'. It further adds 'each with its Article citation' and 'Offline', making the tool's function and distinctive scope clear relative to sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. 'Offline' is an operational note, not a usage rule. The important prerequisite 'call classify first and pass its risk value' lives only in the schema's parameter description, so the description itself does not carry usage guidance.

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