get_eu_ai_act_compliance_passport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Retrieves' indicates a read-only operation, and the content described (passport, risk classification) implies no side effects. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or explicit read-only guarantees, so a small deduction.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loading the primary function and then providing usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 description is complete for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. It lists the items returned (Compliance Passport, risk classification, etc.) and explicitly scopes usage, leaving no critical information missing.

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 only parameter (agent_address) is fully described in the schema with a clear explanation of its format and purpose. The tool description adds no extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves an EU AI Act Compliance Passport and related data, with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly differentiates from siblings by specifying when to use and when not to use.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: 'Use this tool ONLY when assessing regulatory compliance' and directs to alternatives for other cases (inspect_agent_output, get_agent_credit_rating).

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