germany-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source and scope (6000+ laws), supports abbreviations, and mentions default/max limits. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what happens with partial/no matches. The description adds useful context but leaves gaps.

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 appropriately sized with three paragraphs: purpose, search capabilities, and parameter details. Each sentence adds value - no fluff. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the abbreviation example earlier, but overall structure is efficient.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and parameter usage well, but lacks information about return format, error conditions, performance characteristics, or how results are ranked/returned. Given the complexity and lack of structured fields, it should do more.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'query' as search term or abbreviation with multiple examples, and 'limit' with default (10) and maximum (50) values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. The only minor gap is lack of format details for abbreviations.

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 German federal laws and regulations by title, with specific mention of the source (gesetze-im-internet.de) and scope (6000+ laws). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on legal search rather than transportation, weather, or parliamentary data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bundestag_suche' which might also search legal documents.

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 implies usage for searching German laws by title or abbreviation, with examples provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bundestag_suche' (which might search parliamentary activities) or other legal research tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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