lookup_article

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only ('Return the verbatim text'), which is appropriate. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or if the text is the official version. Basic transparency but room for improvement.

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?

One sentence of 15 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and scope. No redundancy, everything earns its place. Front-loaded with key verb and resource.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It identifies the exact content (articles 1-113), source (EU), and action (return verbatim text). Could mention data freshness or error handling, but overall sufficient.

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?

Both parameters (number and language) are fully described in the input schema with descriptions covering range and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 returns 'verbatim text of a specific EU AI Act Article (1–113)'. It specifies the exact resource (articles), range, and source ('as published by the EU'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_eu_ai_act that search instead of retrieving full text.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. The description implies use for retrieving a specific article by number, but does not mention alternatives like search_eu_ai_act for search scenarios. The sibling names provide context but the description itself lacks this guidance.

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