Bundesrecht durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details like the fassung_vom parameter (consolidated version) and applikation data sources, but does not contradict annotations. It aligns well with the safety profile.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by bullet-point examples. It is slightly lengthy but each example adds value; no redundant information.

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, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers all major search modes, data sources, and special parameters (e.g., fassung_vom, abschnitt_typ). It provides enough context for effective use without needing additional documentation.

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%, but the description adds significant value through example queries that demonstrate parameter combinations (e.g., titel+paragraph, abschnitt_typ with Artikel). It also explains non-trivial constraints like fassung_vom not supported for Erv.

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 it searches Austrian federal laws (Bundesrecht) and provides multiple example queries showing the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ris_landesrecht and ris_judikatur by specifying 'Bundesrecht', though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 gives example queries and explains parameters like fassung_vom and abschnitt_typ, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., ris_landesrecht for state laws). The context is implied but not clarified.

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