eul:search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential side effects (likely none), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it queries a SPARQL endpoint. The description only states the basic operation without additional behavioral context.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search EU legislation'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope (directives, regulations, treaties), and return format. It could be improved by mentioning language and resource type options, but these are covered in the schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not mention any parameters. Baseline score of 3 applies per guidelines.

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 explicitly states 'Search EU legislation' using EUR-Lex SPARQL endpoint, and specifies return types (CELEX numbers, titles, dates). It distinguishes from sibling 'eul:get_document' by focusing on search rather than 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 implies usage for searching EU legislation but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'dip:search' or 'legis:search'. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned.

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