ris_bundesrecht

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the search purpose and gives examples, but omits any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or handling of no results. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 three short sentences plus an example list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence is useful. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It does not mention the response format (markdown/json supported by response_format parameter), pagination, or date filtering. Examples cover only three of eight parameters, leaving gaps for a moderately complex tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by showing example queries mapping to parameters (suchworte, titel+paragraph, applikation), but does not cover all parameters (fassung_vom, seite, limit, response_format). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches Austrian federal laws (Bundesrecht) with a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'federal laws'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ris_landesrecht (state laws) and ris_judikatur (judicial decisions).

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 explicitly says to use this tool for federal legislation like ABGB, StGB, UGB, and provides example queries. It implies context for usage, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives; however, sibling names provide enough differentiation.

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