epl_rechtskontext

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description that the tool provides information only. The description adds behavioral context (Fedlex references, structured information) beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 very concise, with a clear structure including a <use_case> tag. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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's limited complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's function and intended use cases.

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?

Although context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, the actual input schema includes descriptions for both parameters ('frage' and 'format'). The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: providing legal context for the mandatory health insurance obligation ('Kassenpflicht'). It specifies the verb 'liefern' and the resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it supplements search tools with legal context.

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 includes a <use_case> block that tells when to use the tool (for legal basis questions about 'Kassenpflicht' and WZW criteria) and that it complements search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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