ris:search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that judikatur returns Rechtssätze (legal principles) and directs to ris:get for full decisions. It explains application types and parameters, but does not detail response format or rate limits. Sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 (~150 words) with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then sequentially explains applications, court, sort, results, and jurisdictional notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers result types for judikatur and purpose of each application. However, it lacks details on pagination, total results, or response structure for non-judikatur searches. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining application meanings, court abbreviations, bundesland scope, and sort usage for latest results, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Search the Austrian Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes' and explains the three applications (bundesrecht, landesrecht, judikatur). It distinguishes from German tools (rii:*, legis:*) and from ris:get for full text, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises when to use sort='date' for latest decisions and notes jurisdiction differences (Austrian vs. German law). It implies when not to use (e.g., for full text, use ris:get) but does not explicitly list all alternatives or exclusions.

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