Generate an Article 50 disclosure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the 'Offline' trait, which is useful context, but it does not describe the output format, any prerequisites, or other behavioral details. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that conveys the core action, the categories, the languages, and a key behavioral trait ('Offline'). Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters, both fully described in the schema. The description succinctly states the tool's purpose and adds the 'Offline' detail. It does not explicitly mention the return format, but for a 'snippet' generator this is largely implied and not a significant 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%, and both parameters (locale and scenario) have enums with detailed descriptions explaining the relevant Article 50 duties. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and specifies the exact resource ('Article 50 transparency disclosure snippet'), plus the relevant categories (chatbot, genai-content, deepfake, emotion) and languages (EN/DE). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify or explain_obligation, which serve different purposes.

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 its use case by naming the disclosure types and languages, and the parameter schema further clarifies when each scenario applies. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., explain_obligation) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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