Regierungsvorlagen durchsuchen

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds content context ('Contains government proposals submitted to parliament') and demonstrates search patterns, but does not disclose behaviors like result language, pagination limits, or API-specific quirks. With annotations covering the critical safety aspects, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clear one-line purpose, a usage sentence, a content sentence, and three examples. It is not overly verbose, and every section serves a purpose. It loses a point for slight redundancy in the first two sentences, both of which emphasize the bill topic, but overall it is tight and informative.

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 presence of a rich output schema, exhaustive parameter descriptions, and readOnly annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It adequately covers what the tool searches, when to use it, and how to formulate queries. It is complete for the average agent, though a note about German-language results or the 'openWorldHint' could push it to a 5.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by providing concrete example queries that map to parameters (suchworte, einbringende_stelle, beschlussdatum_von/bis), clarifying how to combine them and what the expected outcome is (e.g., bills from 2024). This adds practical meaning beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Search Austrian Government Bills (Regierungsvorlagen)', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ris_bundesrecht or ris_judikatur. It further narrows scope with 'government proposals submitted to parliament', eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this tool for legislative history and parliamentary materials', giving a clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives, but the domain is distinct enough from siblings (laws, court decisions, ordinances) to imply exclusions. Example queries further illustrate realistic use cases.

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