ris_toc

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (TOC with §§ and headings), what inputs affect behavior (full title vs abbreviation, application scope), and implies a network fetch to the RIS service. It does not hide side effects or require inferred prerequisites, making it behaviorally transparent for an agent.

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?

Three sentences with high information density. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose and follow-up, practical abbreviation advice, and legal-scope parameters. There is no 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and usage context. It covers the purpose, the expected content (TOC with §§ and headings), the follow-up tool, the two application scopes, and the parameter dependency between application and bundesland. This is sufficient for an agent 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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage context: it explicitly mentions using the full title when an abbreviation fails, which supplements the schema's 'Law title or abbreviation' example. It also clarifies that bundesland is needed for landesrecht. Only minor extra value beyond schema, hence 4.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the table of contents of an Austrian consolidated law, listing its §§ with headings, and names the follow-up tool ris_get_norm. It differentiates from siblings like ris_get and ris_get_norm by specifying the TOC retrieval purpose.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: use it to get a TOC before reading a norm with ris_get_norm, and advises using full titles if abbreviations fail. It also explains that application='bundesrecht' or 'landesrecht' with bundesland, which provides clear selection criteria.

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