Bundesgesetzblatt durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a low burden. It adds that the tool contains 'official publications of federal laws, ordinances, and treaties' and provides query examples, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits.

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 reasonably concise at 5 sentences plus example queries. It front-loads the purpose and provides structured examples. Could be slightly more compact by removing redundant phrases.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world, the description provides sufficient domain context and examples. The example queries help clarify usage for common scenarios.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds example parameter mappings (e.g., bgblnummer='120', jahrgang='2023') but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already describes.

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's purpose: 'Search Austrian Federal Law Gazettes (Bundesgesetzblatt)'. The specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Austrian Federal Law Gazettes' differentiate it from sibling tools like ris_bundesrecht or ris_judikatur, which cover different legal 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?

The description provides context: 'Use this tool for historical research and tracking when laws were enacted.' It also includes example queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative siblings for different types of legal research.

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