search_by_gdpr_article

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results can be filtered by violation status, country, and limit, but does not describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter. Basic behavioral traits are covered.

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 extremely concise (two sentences and examples) with no wasted words. Every sentence provides actionable information, and examples are front-loaded for clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope (article, violation filter, geography, limit). It lacks details on return structure or error handling, but for a search tool with these parameters, it is largely 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by providing example article formats and clarifying the default for 'violated_only,' but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding GDPR decisions that cite or violate a specific GDPR article. It uses specific verbs ('find,' 'cites or violates') and provides concrete examples of article references, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_decision_detail' or 'search_gdpr_decisions'.

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 tells when to use the tool ('useful for finding enforcement patterns for specific provisions') and implies its specialized nature compared to broader search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_gdpr_decisions' for broader queries.

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