Regierungsvorlagen durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is that it 'contains government proposals submitted to parliament.' The description adds some context about the content but does not detail behavior like pagination, error handling, or output format beyond examples. With good annotations, this is adequate.

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: one sentence summary, one context sentence, and three example queries. No redundant information. It is well-structured for quick understanding, though the examples could be formatted more compactly.

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 no required parameters, no output schema, and 11 parameters, the description provides adequate context through examples covering key filters (text, ministry, date range). It does not explain return format or pagination, but the schema covers limit and page. For a search tool with good schema and annotations, this is fairly 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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), baseline 3. The description adds value by providing example queries that combine parameters (e.g., suchworte, einbringende_stelle, date range), illustrating realistic usage and parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 Government Bills (Regierungsvorlagen)' and specifies the resource (Regierungsvorlagen) and verb (search). It distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly by naming the specific legislative document type, but does not explicitly differentiate from other RIS tools.

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 for legislative history and parliamentary materials,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools have distinct document types.

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