Bundesrecht durchsuchen

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses crucial behavioral quirks: 'suchworte' results are ordered alphabetically by law title; 'paragraph' is ignored for applikation='Erv'; and 'fassung_vom' retrieves the law as it stood on a specific date. These add significant operational context that the annotations do not cover, making API behavior predictable.

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 structured with a clear opening, a 'Search strategy' section, and a bulleted 'Example queries' list. Every sentence adds value: the strategy section explains when to use which parameter, and the examples cover diverse use cases. Despite its length, it is densely informative and well-organized, not wasteful.

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 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential search scenarios, edge cases (Erv ignoring paragraph, alphabetical sorting), and concrete examples. It addresses the main risks (buried results, article-based laws, versioned texts) without needing to duplicate schema details. Given the tool's complexity, this is a complete and self-sufficient guide.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that 'titel' and 'paragraph' are precise for known laws, that 'suchworte' is a broad but poorly ordered fallback, that 'abschnitt_typ' is required for article-based laws like B-VG, and that 'paragraph' is ignored for 'Erv'. The example queries further illustrate combinations. This enriches the schema beyond mere parameter names.

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 opens with 'Search Austrian federal laws (Bundesrecht)' and follows with 'Use this tool to find Austrian federal legislation like ABGB, StGB, UGB, etc.' This is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ris_landesrecht (state law) and ris_judikatur (case law) by explicitly stating the federal law scope.

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 explicit search-strategy guidance: 'titel and paragraph are the precise entry points — prefer them whenever the law or the section is known' and warns that 'suchworte' returns hits ordered alphabetically, not by relevance. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over them, but the federal-law scope is clear from the title and description. This is strong context with no explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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