ris_search

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results may be consolidated law or authentic publications identified by `applikation`, that bundesland restricts to LrKons, and that judikatur returns Rechtssätze that list the full Entscheidungstext. The Austrian-vs-German jurisdiction warning is useful behavioral context.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it starts with the resource, moves through application-specific behavior, and closes with cross-tool routing. It does not restate schema details or include filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's explanation of result types, Rechtssätze, and the full Entscheidungstext is critical and present. It covers all three application modes, filters, sorting, and the follow-up tool (ris_get), so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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, but this description adds substantive meaning beyond the schema: bundesland filters to consolidated LrKons, court values map to specific courts (Justiz = OGH/OLG/LG, etc.), and sort='date' means latest decisions. This helps agents choose parameter values correctly, not just understand their names.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource: the Austrian Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes (RIS). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly routing German case law to rii_* and German legislation to legis_*, and by pointing to ris_get for fetching full decision texts.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance per application value: bundesrecht/landesrecht for broad law collections, judikatur for case law with court selection, and bundesland for consolidated state law. It also gives exclusions ('For GERMAN case law use rii_*, for German legislation use legis_*') and tells agents when to use sort='date'.

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