legis:search

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses that the tool returns IDs (implying a read-only operation) and does not mention any destructive or mutating behavior. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the description is sufficient given the search context.

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 three sentences long, each providing distinct value: purpose, return value, and coverage/exception. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description explains the tool's role relative to siblings like legis:get and covers the key constraint (no BUND search). It lacks details about output format (e.g., structure of 'results with IDs'), but this is acceptable for a search tool that is well-connected to a retrieval 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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (query, state, limit) with examples and an enum for state. The description adds context about state coverage and the BUND exception, which complements the schema. No parameter information is missing.

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, returns IDs for retrieval via legis:get, and covers all 16 Bundesländer. It also specifies that BUND is not supported, effectively distinguishing the tool's purpose from federal law searches.

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 explicitly tells users to use this tool for state legislation searches and to use legis:get directly for federal law (BUND). It also indicates that results contain IDs for subsequent retrieval, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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