Gemeinderecht durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description ("Search", 'find') is consistent and adds context like the two application types and limitations per app (e.g., 'Gr only', 'GrA only'). However, it doesn't disclose further behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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 introductory sentence, a usage section, and example queries. It is concise enough for the complexity (19 parameters) but slightly verbose with the listing of applications and examples. No wasted words.

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 the high parameter count and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the two application contexts, provides example queries, and notes which parameters apply to which app. The response_format parameter provides output format options. No major gaps.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions including allowed values and constraints. The description adds contextual value through example queries showing parameter combinations and notes about app-specific parameters (e.g., bezirk for GrA). This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 municipal law (Gemeinderecht) and finds municipal regulations/ordinances. The title 'Gemeinderecht durchsuchen' reinforces this. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the scope is well-defined.

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 includes example queries and mentions two applications (Gr, GrA). However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other RIS tools (e.g., when to use ris_landesrecht instead). No explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are given.

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