dip_search_vorgang

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core matching behavior (literal substring on title, not keyword AND/OR) and what the response contains (status, linked Drucksachen-Nummern). It could mention more edge behavior, but it covers the most important traits.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value, and usage guidance. The most important scoping detail (literal substring, not keyword search) is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough orientation: what is searched, what is returned, and how to phrase queries. The schema covers parameter details. Minor gap: it does not clarify that vorgangstyp can target non-Gesetzgebung Vorgang types, but this is not blocking.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description reinforces the query parameter's substring semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 searches legislative processes (Vorgänge) in DIP and returns Gesetzgebungsvorgänge with status and linked Drucksachen-Nummern. It also differentiates itself from sibling dip_search by explicitly describing the literal-substring matching behavior.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context (tracking a law or finding related documents) and an explicit when-not-to-use signal: this is NOT a keyword AND/OR search, and dip_search is named as the alternative. It also advises preferring a single distinctive word over a natural-language phrase.

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