Judikatur durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the distinction between Rechtssatz and Entscheidungstext, the default behavior of searching both, and the note that the RIS API otherwise searches only Rechtssätze. It also discloses the requirement that fachgebiet only matches full decision texts, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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: a one-line summary, a concise explanation of document kinds, and a bullet-like list of example queries. Each section earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded and examples at the end. It is thorough without being bloated, achieving excellent readability for an AI agent.

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?

For a complex tool with 16 parameters and no required fields, the description provides ample context to invoke it correctly. It covers key dimensions: scope, document types, jurisdiction selection, parameter constraints, and example queries. It also notes historical data collections that remain searchable. The presence of an output schema and rich parameter descriptions means the description does not need to explain return formats, making this level of completeness ideal.

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%, with every parameter having a description, defaults, and enums. The description adds synergy by tying parameters together in examples (e.g., 'gerichtsbarkeit="Justiz", fachgebiet="Arbeitsrecht", sortierung="datum_ab"') and clarifying nuanced behaviors like the interaction between fachgebiet and dokumenttyp. This exceeds the baseline 3 by providing guidance on how to combine parameters effectively.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Search Austrian court decisions (Judikatur).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on case law (Judikatur) rather than legislative texts. It further differentiates document kinds (Rechtssatz vs. Entscheidungstext) and gives concrete examples, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear when-to-use guidance through multiple example queries (e.g., 'gerichtsbarkeit="Vfgh", suchworte="Grundrecht"' and 'norm="1295 ABGB"'). It explains applicable jurisdictions and parameter constraints, such as fachgebiet only applying to Justiz and requiring dokumenttyp 'entscheidungstext' or 'beide'. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative sibling tools, but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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