ris:get_norm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output format (Markdown) and calls itself 'token-preserving', but lacks details on error behavior, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the paragraph is not found. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise—two sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: what it does, an example, and a distinguishing benefit. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (retrieve a single paragraph) and the richness of the schema (100% parameter coverage, enums), the description covers the purpose, usage, and output format adequately. No output schema is needed because the return format (Markdown) is stated. It fully addresses the user's needs for selection and invocation.

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 for parameters is 100% with well-written descriptions. The tool description adds an example (law='ABGB', paragraph='1295') and clarifies usage, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a single paragraph of an Austrian consolidated law as Markdown, with specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'single paragraph'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ris:get by emphasizing it gets only one paragraph instead of the whole statute.

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 says 'The surgical, token-preserving way to read ONE § instead of a whole statute', indicating when to use this tool (for single paragraphs) and implying when not to (use ris:get for whole laws). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the sibling list and context make it clear.

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