eu_evidence

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by listing possible errors (`out_of_scope`, `corpus_error`), which helps agents anticipate failure modes. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes optional narrowing and error information without unnecessary detail. Could benefit from separating errors into a dedicated section.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description explains what the tool retrieves (evidence artifacts with auditor questions) but does not describe the structure of the response. It mentions errors, which adds completeness. Annotations fill some gaps, but more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 50% (only 'article' has a description). The tool description adds meaning: it explains that the tool returns evidence 'for which article' and that narrowing to one article is optional. For 'regulation', it implies selection of regulation but lacks explicit parameter semantics beyond the enum.

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 that this tool returns evidence artifacts required by regulations, optionally filtered by article. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying audit-related content and mentioning possible errors. However, it could be more explicit about listing evidence items.

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 that the tool is used to retrieve evidence artifacts for a regulation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like eu_article or eu_search. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are provided.

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