Get EU AI Act Article Text

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: returns an operational summary plus URL, with a fallback to the base URL for unsupported articles. 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the core action (retrieve operational summary and URL), then adds constraints and usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the article subset, fallback behavior, and intended use, making it complete for a lookup tool.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying article number format (e.g., 'Art. 99', case-insensitivity, optional prefix). This enriches the parameter 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 the tool retrieves an operational summary of a specific EU AI Act article plus a stable EUR-Lex URL. It specifies the supported subset of articles and behavior for unsupported ones, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle obligations or classifications.

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 advises to use for grounding citations and quoting article text. Mentions the article subset limitation, implying when not to use, but lacks explicit alternatives for unsupported articles or scenarios.

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