ris_search_law

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that each hit includes eli_uri, human_readable_citation, source_url, content_urls, and that fassung_vom provides historical snapshots. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a search tool these are less critical.

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, front-loads purpose, and uses structured listing of applikation values and parameter usage. Every sentence adds specific detail 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?

Given 21 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers many usage scenarios and output fields. It could explicitly mention pagination parameters (page_number, page_size) but still provides substantial context.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains several parameters (applikation, paragraph, artikel, anlage, fassung_vom, etc.) but omits many others like suchworte, titel, gesetzesnummer. It adds value but not for all 21 parameters.

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 it searches Austrian federal law (Bundesrecht), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool ris_get_law_text by focusing on search functionality, not text retrieval.

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 guidance on using different applikation types and parameters (e.g., paragraph/artikel/anlage for BrKons, einbringende_stelle for Begut). It implicitly separates use cases but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to prefer the sibling.

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