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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful behavior — the entscheidungstext default vs rechtssatz headnotes, and the source system (RIS/Bundeskanzleramt). It does not discuss pagination limits or rate limits beyond the schema's limit note.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and scoping first, defaults and return fields next, handoff last. Every sentence carries information; slightly long but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the return fields (Geschäftszahl, ECLI, date, legal/subject area, headnote), names the data source, and points to the full-text sibling — everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond it by explaining what each court family means (vfgh = constitutional, vwgh = supreme administrative, justiz = ordinary courts) and clarifying the doc_type default/tradeoff. This materially helps an agent pick values that the bare schema strings do not.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Austrian case law / Judikatur) plus the exact scoping dimension (one court family). It is clearly distinguishable from at_search_legislation and at_get_decision, which is named as the follow-up for full text.

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?

Explains the search axes (full-text, Geschäftszahl, date range) and explicitly routes the agent to at_get_decision for the full original-language text. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when Y' exclusion against at_search_legislation, but the handoff context is strong.

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