rechtsinhalte pruefen

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Schreibt nichts, ohne Netz." Beyond that, it discloses the review intervals and the possible status values (fällig, bald fällig, unbekannt, in Ordnung), which are useful behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in the relevant rules and status values without filler. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or decorative language.

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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return semantics by listing the possible statuses and the review rules. The only parameter is fully covered by the schema, and the annotations cover safety, so no important context is missing.

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%, and the sole optional parameter "stichtag" is fully documented in the schema as a date in JJJJ-MM-TT format with default today. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ("Meldet") and resource ("mitgelieferten Rechtsinhalte") and states exactly what is reported: which legal contents need re-checking against the official full text. It also names the content categories and review intervals, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from generic inventory or document tools.

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 the tool is used for compliance review of supplied legal content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as bestand_pruefen or quellen_katalog. The context is clear enough to infer intended use, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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