eu_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing specific error scenarios (out_of_scope, missing_arg, not_found) and clarifying that the tool returns title and chapter in addition to the article text.

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 sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and return values, followed by a list of possible errors. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information, with no unnecessary words.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content (full text, title, chapter), and error scenarios. It could be improved by describing the output format or structure, but the given information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 50% (article_number has a description, regulation only has an enum). The description reiterates that parameters are regulation identifier and article number but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. No explanation of the regulation enum values.

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 the full verbatim text of an article along with its title and chapter, given a regulation and article number. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like eu_search by specifying it returns the exact text, not search results.

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 usage context through error messages (e.g., 'out_of_scope' for regulations not in the 6 ICP list), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eu_search or eu_compare. No direct guidance on when-not-to-use.

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