List consolidation version dates for a Swiss federal act. Returns the dates each consolidated version took effect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: 1 year ago) | |
| language | No | Language for amendment titles (default: de) | |
| rs_number | Yes | RS/SR number |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read operation by saying 'List' and 'returns dates', but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is non-destructive. Basic behavior is disclosed.
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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without wasted words.
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 the simple nature of listing dates and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could mention the output format but is sufficient for a straightforward list tool.
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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or format constraints for 'since'.
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 lists consolidation version dates for a Swiss federal act, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource (dates). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on version dates rather than full text or articles.
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 provides clear context that the tool is for listing version dates, implying it should be used when dates are needed versus text or search. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: fetching specific articles, retrieving full law text, listing consolidation dates, and searching by title. No ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (get_article, get_law_text, list_amendments, search_by_title), making them easy to understand and remember.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing Swiss federal legislation. Each tool provides essential functionality without redundancy.
The tools cover finding a law by title, retrieving full text, accessing specific articles, and listing version dates. A minor gap is the lack of article content search, but descriptions guide agents to use get_law_text for that.
