legis_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it handles this well by disclosing automatic prefix stripping, equivalence of different section formats, and the non-obvious limitation that some reissued laws use a different URL slug. It does not explicitly describe return or save behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and each subsequent sentence contributing useful details or examples. It is longer than a minimal description, but the complexity of the id format justifies the length; no sentence feels like filler.

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 is nearly complete for this tool's main difficulty—constructing and interpreting the id across BUND and Länder jurisdictions. It also covers edge cases like prefix normalization and not-found fallback, but it leaves the output/save semantics implicit rather than stating what the tool returns or when save_path is necessary.

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 description substantially enriches the id parameter beyond the schema: it explains BUND's 'law/section' anatomy, requires lowercase law abbreviations, documents equivalent prefix forms, and distinguishes Länder IDs. The state and save_path parameters are already well described in the schema, and the 100% schema coverage supports a high score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a specific law/norm from German federal or state legislation.' It clearly separates this point-lookup tool from sibling search/toc tools such as legis_search and legis_toc by focusing on a single known document rather than discovery or navigation.

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 clear operational guidance: for Länder, the ID must come from legis_search results, and if the lookup returns 'not found', it advises a subscription-provider fallback. It does not explicitly state 'use legis_search to discover IDs, use legis_get once you have them,' but the workflow is strongly implied.

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