eul_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the endpoint and return fields; it does not disclose that this is a read-only SPARQL query, any rate limiting or latency behavior, how the query is matched against titles, or the meaning of language and limit in practice. It is not misleading, but it is notably under-disclosed.

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 tightly written sentence, front-loaded with 'Search EU legislation'. It conveys the verb, resource, technical endpoint, and return values without any filler 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?

The schema is fully described, making invocation possible. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain how the returned CELEX numbers might be used with eul_get_document or how to choose among the various resource types. Given the complexity of the EUR-Lex domain, some additional context would be valuable.

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%, so the parameters already carry descriptions for query, resource_type, language, and limit. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Search'), resource ('EU legislation'), endpoint ('EUR-Lex SPARQL'), and output ('CELEX numbers, titles, and dates'). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling eul_get_document by the search verb, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling. It also omits 'decision' from the enumerated types even though the schema includes it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eul_get_document or the other jurisdiction-specific search tools. The description implies it is for searching EU law but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or how to route to a subsequent document-fetching tool.

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