Gemeinderecht durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by defining the Gr and GrA applications and providing example query structures. However, it doesn't disclose pagination or rate limits, but those are not essential given the annotations and output schema.

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 moderately sized with clear sections for purpose, usage, applications, and examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The examples add length but are directly useful. Some repetition of schema info could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 19 optional parameters, a complete search tool description needs examples and guidance, which are provided. The output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description covers the main use cases and variant applications, though it could mention how results are sorted/paginated. Overall it is adequate for the complexity.

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 all 19 parameters have descriptions. The description adds value through example queries that show parameter combinations (e.g., gemeinde='Graz', suchworte='Parkgebuehren') and clarifies which parameters belong to Gr vs GrA (though some of that is already in schema descriptions). This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 municipal law (Gemeinderecht)' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies 'municipal regulations and local ordinances.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools for federal law (ris_bundesrecht), state law (ris_landesrecht), and case law (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 says 'Use this tool to find municipal regulations and local ordinances,' providing clear context. It also explains the Gr/GrA application variants and gives example queries, but does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool or exclude other RIS tools. This is slightly less explicit than the 'search_calls_extensive' alternative example.

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