ris:get_norm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the output format (Markdown), distinguishes federal vs. state law, and mentions the token-efficient nature. It does not discuss errors, authentication, or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with an example. It is front-loaded with the core action and output, and every clause adds useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 covers the purpose, output format, and key parameter variations despite the lack of annotations and output schema. It could be slightly more complete by naming the sibling tool for whole-statute retrieval, but it is sufficient for a focused single-paragraph getter.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds example values (law='ABGB', paragraph='1295') but does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like save_path or bundesland. 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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single paragraph (§) of an Austrian consolidated law'), and specifies the output format (Markdown). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing retrieval of ONE paragraph rather than a 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 provides clear usage context: it is the 'surgical, token-preserving way to read ONE § instead of a whole statute.' This implies when to prefer this tool over retrieving entire laws, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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