Landesgesetzblatt durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by stating the geographic coverage (all 9 states) and providing example queries that show how parameters combine. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe edge cases or response format (not needed due to 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes two example queries that are highly informative without being verbose. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 complexity (9 parameters, output schema provided, rich annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the tool's domain, scope, and usage with examples. The only minor gap is not explicitly differentiating from ris_landesrecht, but the name and description make the gazette focus clear.

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%, which already explains all 9 parameters. The description adds value with example queries that demonstrate how to use specific parameters like lgblnummer, jahrgang, bundesland, and suchworte together. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's isolated definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Search Austrian State Law Gazettes (Landesgesetzblatt)' with a specific verb and resource. It adds that it covers all 9 federal states, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ris_bundesgesetzblatt or ris_landesrecht. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 says 'Use this tool to find official publications of state/provincial laws,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope (state gazettes) is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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