legis_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results contain IDs for retrieval, that state coverage includes all 16 Bundesländer, that federal law is not searchable, and that abbreviations can outperform descriptive phrases. It does not describe response shape, pagination, or error behavior, but the core calling behavior is clear.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the output link to legis_get, the search tip, the geographic scope, and the critical BUND exception. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts: what is searched, what the results provide, scope, and the federal exception. It stops short of explaining result ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with what is given.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by advising that official abbreviations like 'HKG' or 'PolG' tend to be more reliable than descriptive phrases for the query parameter. This is practical, non-obvious guidance that the schema examples only partially provide.

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: 'Search German state legislation (Landesrecht) by keyword.' It clarifies that results carry IDs for retrieval via legis_get, and it explicitly excludes BUND, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from related siblings.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use directive: 'BUND does not support search — use legis_get directly.' It also supplies practical guidance that official abbreviations are often more reliable and notes coverage of all 16 Bundesländer, so an agent knows both when and how to use the tool.

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