legis:search

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses that results include IDs for retrieval, covers all 16 Bundesländer, and that BUND is unsupported. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool the provided context is sufficient and helpful.

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 composed of five concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, output behavior, search tip, coverage, and an explicit exclusion with alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids fluff, though the 'Covers all 16 Bundesländer' is slightly redundant with the schema enum.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the essential workflow: search returns IDs for subsequent retrieval via legis:get. It also covers the main scope and an important limitation (BUND). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though exact result structure is not detailed.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described with examples and constraints. The description adds a useful tip about official abbreviations being more reliable, but this largely reiterates the schema's query examples (e.g., 'PolG'). Thus, the description adds little 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 clearly states the tool searches German state legislation by keyword, specifying the resource (Landesrecht) and the action (search). It distinguishes from sibling legis:get by noting that search returns IDs for retrieval via legis:get, and from other search tools by explicitly targeting state law.

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 gives explicit guidance: use for keyword searches across state legislation, prefer official abbreviations, and avoid using for BUND (federal law) — instead use legis:get directly. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus the primary alternative.

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