Browse EASA table of contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully discloses the return shape (section structure with IR/AMC/GM counts) and hints at rule enumeration, but says nothing about result limits (the max-150 cap lives only in the schema) or pagination. It adds some value without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, leading with the action and following with usage. The 'Part-FCL Subpart H' example earns its place by concretizing the subpart-listing use case, though the parenthetical about counts could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately (structure plus IR/AMC/GM counts, listable rules). The only real gap is the undisclosed 150-rule listing cap, which an agent would only discover from the parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the book enum values and the section_contains filter fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces this with an example ('SUBPART H'-style scoping), adding minimal meaning beyond the structured fields, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Show the structure of a book'), plus what the output contains (sections with IR/AMC/GM counts). It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the sibling tools (search_easa_rules, get_easa_rule, list_easa_sources), so the agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Use it to orient yourself or to list every rule in one subpart' states two concrete uses with a worked example (Part-FCL Subpart H). No exclusions or explicit alternatives are given, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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