Bundesgesetzblatt durchsuchen

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries less burden. It adds that the tool contains official publications, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or auth needs. This is adequate given 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: one sentence of purpose, one sentence of usage guidance, and example queries. No superfluous words; well-structured for quick parsing.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage and examples well. It lacks details on return format or pagination beyond the page parameter, but is fairly complete for a search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds example queries showing parameter combinations, but does not provide meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches 'Austrian Federal Law Gazettes (Bundesgesetzblatt)'. It distinguishes from siblings like ris_bundesrecht (current law) and ris_judikatur (court decisions) by specifying the scope of historical gazettes.

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 advises use for 'historical research and tracking when laws were enacted', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or states when not to use it, relying on sibling names for differentiation.

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