search_eu_ai_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency are clear. The description adds context about returning verbatim provisions and covering all Articles, Recitals, and Annexes, which is useful but does not detail pagination or result limits.

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 paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, when to use, parameter hints, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence serves a clear role, with no 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?

Given it is a search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (provisions matching terms, grounded verbatim). It could mention that results include identifiers (Article/Recital/Annex numbers), but the level of detail is adequate for an AI agent.

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%: both 'query' and 'language' have solid descriptions and examples. The description adds value with guidance to 'Use legal/topic terms rather than full questions for best matches', which goes beyond the schema.

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 it performs full-text keyword search across the entire EU AI Act corpus, returning provisions grounded verbatim. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use lookup_article and classify_ai_system, naming them explicitly.

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?

Explicitly advises to USE THIS when searching by topic without knowing the Article number, and provides contrasting use cases for siblings (e.g., 'to fetch one known Article use lookup_article; to assess risk tier use classify_ai_system').

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