dip:search_vorgang

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, require authentication, or have other constraints. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: the first identifies the action and resource, the second adds return details and a use case. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and returns partly. It could be more complete by describing the output structure or pagination, but it still provides a solid overview for an agent to use the 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?

The input schema already covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Search') and the specific resource ('legislative processes (Vorgänge) in DIP'). It further specifies the return type ('Gesetzgebungsvorgänge with status and linked Drucksachen-Nummern'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dip:search (generic) and dip:search_plenarprotokoll (plenary protocols).

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 explicit usage context: 'Useful for tracking a law through the legislative process or finding all related documents.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the use case is clear and distinct from siblings.

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