Search Swiss federal legislation titles in the Classified Compilation (RS/SR) on Fedlex. Use to find the RS number of a law when you know its name but not its number. Searches titles only, not article content. Returns only acts currently in force.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keywords to match against act titles (e.g. 'code civil', 'protection des données') | |
| language | No | Language for results (default: de) |
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 that the tool searches titles only and returns only in-force acts. This is sufficient given the read-only nature of a search tool. It could be improved by mentioning any limits (e.g., pagination, result ordering) but is already transparent.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states the domain and action, second sentence clarifies utility and limitations. No 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 there is no output schema and only two parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the scope (Swiss federal legislation, Fedlex), the purpose, and the constraints (titles only, in force). However, it does not specify the format of the results (e.g., list of RS numbers with titles), which would help an agent understand the return value.
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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about searching titles only and returning in-force acts, which is already implied by the schema descriptions. It does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 searches Swiss federal legislation titles in the Classified Compilation on Fedlex. It specifies the purpose: find the RS number of a law when you know its name but not its number. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it searches titles only, not article content, and returns only acts currently in force.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to find the RS number of a law when you know its name. It also explains what it does not do (searches titles only, not article content). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly compare to siblings (get_article, get_law_text, list_amendments), which would provide fuller guidance.
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.
