search_by_celex

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. Description adds that it returns title and URL, but no further behavioral details like error handling or performance. Adequate given annotation coverage.

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?

Description is concise with three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, uniqueness, examples. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with main action.

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 lookup tool with comprehensive annotations and schema, the description covers purpose, parameters (via examples), return value (title + URL), and usage context. No gaps.

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%, so parameters are already described. Description adds CELEX examples and explains uniqueness, but does not significantly extend schema documentation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds an EU legal act by CELEX number, with examples. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (search_by_date_range, search_cjeu) by focusing on unique identifier lookup, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

Provides examples and emphasizes uniqueness of CELEX, but does not specify when to use alternatives or what to do if CELEX is unknown. Implied usage but lacks explicit guidance.

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