Browse EU Legislation by Type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists the exact fields returned, the ordering (most recent date first), the data source, and that no auth is required. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 somewhat long but each sentence serves a purpose: it covers purpose, return fields, doc_type distinctions, usage tip, and data source. The structure is logical and front-loaded, with the core action first. It is not wasteful, though the doc_type explanations could be considered slightly redundant with the schema.

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 tool with 3 params and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the core purpose, return format, ordering, filtering options, auth requirements, and data source. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but the output schema and annotations cover much of that context, so it meets the bar for a well-rounded definition.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds extra value by elaborating on doc_type definitions in context and giving a concrete example for from_year (e.g., 2020). This clarifies intended usage beyond the bare schema, though limit is not discussed beyond its schema definition.

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 a specific action ('Browse') on a specific resource ('EU legislative acts by document type') from 'EUR-Lex Cellar', and explicitly lists the return fields and ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detail/recent/search by focusing on the by-type filter, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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?

The description explains the semantics of each doc_type and how to use from_year, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with its siblings (detail, recent, search). The naming implies when to use it, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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