Get EU AI Act Article Summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals critical behavioral details: only a subset of articles is supported, unsupported articles return the EUR-Lex base URL, and the summary is not statutory text requiring verification via the official link. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious context an agent needs to avoid hallucinating that an article was retrieved when it was not.

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 sentences of dense, non-redundant prose. The most important information (what it retrieves) comes first, followed by scope caveats and a legal disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it covers the return value (summary + URL), scope limits (article subset), failure mode (base URL fallback), and a caution about non-statutory text. Given the presence of a well-defined output schema and annotations, no additional documentation of return values or safety profile is needed.

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% with a well-specified format (case-insensitive, optional 'Art.' prefix). The description adds complementary value by explicitly enumerating the supported article ranges (Art. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9-17, etc.) and the fallback behavior, which directly informs parameter usage without duplicating the schema's format notes.

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+resource structure ('Retrieve an operational summary of a specific article of the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), plus a stable EUR-Lex URL') that precisely scopes the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like euaiact_check_deadlines or euaiact_calculate_penalty by focusing on article retrieval, making the domain boundary obvious.

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 context for when to use this tool (retrieving article summaries from a known subset) is clearly implied through the supported-articles list and fallback behavior. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives from the sibling tools, which would have elevated this dimension.

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