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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is set. The description goes further by disclosing what the results contain (provisions with law, citation, in-force dates separated from publication, subject index, RIS URL) and the source system, which is useful context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and search modes, then result contents, then the sibling routing. Mostly dense and informational, though slightly long. Every sentence carries content, so structure is strong.

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 steps in to describe return values (provisions, citations, in-force dates, subject index, RIS URL) and the date-versioning behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and route follow-ups.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, query, titel, offset, in_force_on, gesetzesnummer) is already documented. The description adds little param-specific detail beyond restating the search modes and the default-today semantics already in the schema, fitting the baseline-3 case.

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 (Austria's consolidated federal law / Bundesrecht konsolidiert) and enumerates the three search modes (full-text, title, law number). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like at_get_legislation_document and at_get_provision.

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 routes the agent to the right sibling: 'Pass gesetzesnummer + a provision number to at_get_provision for the actual text.' It also specifies the default in_force_on behavior, giving the agent enough to choose and invoke this tool over alternatives.

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