ris_get_norm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output format (Markdown), the consolidated-law source, and jurisdiction switching behavior. However, it omits any mention of the save_path side effect and does not address potential errors or output behavior beyond format, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 that front-loads the main action, includes a concrete example, and adds a concise contrast with whole-statute retrieval. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.

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 relatively simple retrieval tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description covers the core purpose, the Markdown output format, jurisdiction handling, and a concrete example. It is slightly incomplete because it never mentions the optional save_path behavior or explicitly ties the tool to sibling tools, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly in common cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example (law="ABGB" paragraph="1295"), clarifying how application selects federal vs state law, and signaling that bundesland must be set in the landesrecht case. This goes beyond the schema's field 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve a single paragraph (§) of an Austrian consolidated law as Markdown." It further distinguishes itself by contrasting with "a whole statute," which differentiates it from siblings like ris_get, and provides a concrete law/paragraph example.

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 clearly communicates the intended use case: the "surgical, token-preserving way to read ONE § instead of a whole statute." It also gives selection context for application="bundesrecht" vs "landesrecht" and notes that bundesland is needed for state law. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use them, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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