ris:toc

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 the tool retrieves a TOC but does not mention rate limits, error handling, or whether it is read-only. It implies it is safe by being a retrieval step before ris:get_norm.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential usage tips without any fluff 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return as '§§ with headings' and connects to the sibling ris:get_norm. A bit more detail on the exact return format would improve it, but it is sufficient for the intended workflow.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by advising to try full titles if abbreviations fail and clarifying the application+bundesland relationship, which goes beyond the schema.

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 the table of contents of an Austrian consolidated law, specifying it returns §§ with headings. It explicitly distinguishes from its sibling ris:get_norm by stating the TOC is a prerequisite for reading a specific norm.

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 guidance: use full title if abbreviation fails, and explains the application parameter choices (bundesrecht vs landesrecht with bundesland). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings like ris:search.

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