classify_use_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is not a substitute for legal counsel and mentions it recommends a next-step sequence. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. Adequate but not extensive.

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?

Three well-structured paragraphs: function and output, use cases, and a caveat. Information is front-loaded with the key purpose and returns. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value.

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 explains the return (risk tier, categories, obligations, next steps). It addresses dual-jurisdiction complexity. Could be slightly more detailed on output format, but sufficient for an AI agent. Context signals (2 params, no annotations) are well-covered.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by advising on specificity for the 'description' parameter (e.g., what the AI does, data used) and explaining the 'jurisdictions' default and dual-framework option. This enhances schema information.

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 classifies AI use-cases under EU AI Act and optionally AU AI Safety Standard, listing specific outputs (risk tier, categories, obligations, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crosswalk or list_regulations by focusing on initial classification and dual-jurisdiction analysis.

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 lists use cases: initial classification, dual-jurisdiction analysis, and structured input for human-counsel-review. Includes caveat about not being a substitute for legal counsel and notes borderline cases needing review. Lacks direct comparison to siblings but provides clear context.

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