Check EU AI Act Implementation Deadlines

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so description is supplementary. It adds critical context: timeline reflects current law, pending pack is labelled as non-enacted, and output includes next_milestone and summary. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded main purpose followed by parameter clarifications. Each sentence serves a purpose without repetition, making it easy to digest.

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 output schema existence, return values need not be described. All parameter behaviors are explained, including edge cases (pending omnibus labeling). The description fully covers the tool's functionality.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable meaning beyond schema descriptions: include_pending_omnibus explains source status and non-enactment, only_upcoming drops past milestones. This enriches agent understanding.

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 it returns implementation milestones and deadlines, with specific features like days remaining and next_milestone. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on deadlines and the Digital Omnibus, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use each optional parameter (include_pending_omnibus, only_upcoming) and clarifies default behavior (current OJ law only). Provides clear context for usage without alternatives, but the specificity suffices.

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