Get EU AI Act Article Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: the supported subset, the explicit fallback to the base URL for uncovered articles, and the warning that the summary is not statutory text and must be verified against the URL before quoting. That fidelity caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, what it supports/falls back to, and the verification caveat. Scope and fallback are front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure needs no explanation; the description still covers coverage limits, fallback behavior, and content-fidelity caveats. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents accepted formats ('5', 'Art. 99', 'Artikel 4'), case-insensitivity, optional prefix, and whole-article granularity. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve an operational summary of a specific article of the EU AI Act') and pins the exact regulation (2024/1689). The enumerated article subset and the EUR-Lex URL return value make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like euaiact_get_obligations or euaiact_answer_question.

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?

It defines the usable scope precisely (which articles are covered) and the behavior outside that scope (base URL fallback), which tells the agent when the tool will and won't be productive. It does not, however, route the agent to a sibling when an article falls outside the subset or when a narrative answer is wanted.

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