eul:get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns full Markdown text, supports partial extraction via section, and can save to a file instead of returning content. This covers key behaviors beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a public EU-law getter, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose+examples, return format, and parameter-specific guidance. Front-loaded and free of fluff. Could not be more concise without losing value.

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?

The tool has only 4 parameters (2 required), all documented, and no output schema. The description covers the return format (Markdown), optional section resolution, and file-saving behavior. For a single-document retrieval tool in a domain with sibling search tools, this is complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for CELEX numbers ("32016R0679"), section formats ("Art. 5", "lines:100-200"), and clarifying save_path behavior (absolute paths only). This goes beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+method: "Retrieve EU legislation from EUR-Lex by CELEX number". It also gives concrete examples (GDPR, InfoSoc) that immediately distinguish it from sibling search tools like eul:search and legis:get. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a CELEX number. It gives focused parameter guidance (section, save_path) and explains alternatives within the tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use a search tool if you don't know the CELEX number,' so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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