eul:get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the output format (Markdown) and explains the behavior of `section` and `save_path`. It does not mention side effects or restrictions, but as a read-only retrieval tool, this is acceptable. Slightly lower because no annotations exist to complement.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides actionable usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Despite the lack of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool retrieves, how to specify parameters, and the return format (Markdown). For a straightforward retrieval tool with 4 parameters, this is complete and leaves minimal ambiguity.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by providing examples for `section` (e.g., 'Art. 5', 'lines:100-200') and explaining the effect of `save_path` (saves to file instead of returning content). This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 EU legislation by CELEX number, with concrete examples (e.g., GDPR, InfoSoc). The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'EU legislation from EUR-Lex' are specific, and the distinction from sibling 'eul:search' is implicit as this is for exact document retrieval.

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 guidance on using parameters like `section` for partial content and `save_path` for file saving. It implies this tool is for retrieval by CELEX number, contrasting with the sibling 'eul:search'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond parameters.

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