legis_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the result is a 'compact list' without full text, and that it is designed for efficient navigation of large laws. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool the core behavioral traits are sufficiently conveyed.

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 lead with the core purpose, then the key comparison with legis_get, then the id-construction rule. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a complete schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making and invocation context: what it returns, when to prefer it, and how to obtain ids. It does not specify default depth behavior or differentiate from ris_toc, but those are secondary given the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 real value beyond the schema by explaining how to construct the id: a plain law abbreviation for BUND and a legis_search result id for Länder. This is exactly the kind of contextual parameter knowledge an agent needs.

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 opening phrase 'Get table of contents for a law — compact list of section numbers and headings' names a specific verb, resource, and output shape. It also differentiates itself from the sibling legis_get by calling itself 'much lighter,' so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 context: use this tool for navigating large laws when a lightweight table of contents is preferable to legis_get. It also instructs that Länder ids must come from legis_search results, which is an actionable workflow hint. It does not explicitly state when to choose legis_get instead, but the lighter/heavier contrast implies it.

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