Verordnungsblätter 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 clear. The description adds a key behavioral limitation: 'Currently only Tirol data is available (since January 1, 2022). Other federal states have not yet published their ordinance gazettes in RIS.' This is not captured in annotations and helps set expectations. The example queries also illustrate search semantics.

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: an opening line, a usage sentence, a brief note on data availability, and a bulleted list of example queries. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no fluff. It is slightly longer than the minimal example but remains focused and readable.

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 9 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary search dimensions and the critical Tirol-only limitation. It provides examples for the main parameters (full-text, title, state, publication number, date range). Pagination and response format are handled by schema and output schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a well-documented tool.

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% – every parameter already has a descriptive label and meaning. The description's examples (suchworte, titel, bundesland, kundmachungsnummer, kundmachungsdatum_von/bis) essentially mirror the schema descriptions, adding only a combined date-range example but no new parameter syntax or deeper semantics 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 states 'Search Austrian state ordinance gazettes (Verordnungsblaetter der Laender)' which is a specific verb+resource, and clarifies 'state/provincial ordinances' distinguishing it from federal legal databases. The title 'Verordnungsblätter durchsuchen' reinforces this. This is distinct from siblings like ris_landesrecht or ris_landesgesetzblatt by focusing on ordinances specifically.

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?

Provides an explicit usage statement: 'Use this tool to find official publications of state/provincial ordinances.' It also gives concrete example queries for common scenarios, which helps the agent understand when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for federal law or other contexts, stopping short of full when-not guidance.

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