ris_landesgesetzblatt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a search function but does not specify behavior like result format, pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. The applikation parameter hints at authentication but is not explained. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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: three sentences and two example queries, with no wasted words. The main purpose is stated first, followed by scope and examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the main search functionality and parameter usage via examples, but lacks details on return values, pagination, error handling, and behavioral aspects. For a search tool, it provides sufficient context for basic use but could be improved.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example queries that illustrate parameter combinations (e.g., lgblnummer, jahrgang, bundesland) and clarifying the applikation parameter briefly. This exceeds the baseline by offering practical usage context.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: searching Austrian State Law Gazettes. It states coverage of all 9 federal states and provides example queries, making the intent unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ris_bundesgesetzblatt by focusing on state-level gazettes.

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 states when to use the tool ('to find official publications of state/provincial laws') and gives context with example queries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, which is a minor omission.

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