Landesrecht durchsuchen

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe and dynamic. The description adds value by explaining the 'fassung_vom' parameter for retrieving law versions as of a specific date, which is behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, front-loads the tool's purpose, and uses bullet-point examples efficiently without extraneous text.

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 tool has 11 parameters but no output schema, the description explains the search functionality and key parameters well. However, it could briefly mention what the response contains (e.g., list of laws with metadata) to be fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description’s example queries show practical combinations of parameters (e.g., 'suchworte', 'bundesland', 'titel', 'paragraph'), adding semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool searches Austrian state/provincial laws (Landesrecht), differentiating it from federal law tools. Example queries further clarify the purpose.

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 example queries demonstrating typical usage patterns (e.g., by state, title, paragraph). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ris_bundesrecht or ris_landesgesetzblatt.

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