Bundesgesetzblatt durchsuchen

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, lowering the bar. The description adds context about the corpus (official publications) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or response format. Even though the schema covers some of these, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear usage directive and valuable example queries. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 9 optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how parameters can be combined. The example queries provide practical invocation guidance, making the tool easy to select and use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description provides example queries (e.g., bgblnummer='120', jahrgang='2023', teil='1' and suchworte='Klimaschutz') that illustrate how parameters combine for specific use cases, adding meaningful semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 'Search Austrian Federal Law Gazettes (Bundesgesetzblatt)', identifying the specific resource and action. It also notes the gazette contains official publications of federal laws, ordinances, and treaties, distinguishing it from sibling 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 explicitly directs when to use the tool: 'Use this tool for historical research and tracking when laws were enacted.' It also gives concrete example queries for common use cases. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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