Bezirksverwaltungsbehörden durchsuchen

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the note that only certain states publish here (Niederösterreich, Oberösterreich, Tirol, Vorarlberg, Burgenland, Steiermark). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does not contradict 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose, followed by usage guidance, a caveat, and examples. The structure is efficient with no redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences.

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 are 11 optional parameters, a full schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: the tool's scope, the limitation on participating states, and example queries. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'Results per page: 10, 20, 50, or 100 (default: 20)'). The description's example queries demonstrate parameter usage but do not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already defines.

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's purpose: 'Search Austrian district administrative authority announcements (Kundmachungen der Bezirksverwaltungsbehörden).' The verb 'search' combined with the specific resource (district administrative authority announcements) distinguishes it from sibling RIS tools like ris_bundesrecht or ris_judikatur.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('find announcements and ordinances from district administrative authorities') and includes example queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other RIS content, so it misses the 'explicit when-not' criterion for a 5.

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