ris_landesrecht

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions searching and gives an example, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or effects. The schema includes pagination parameters, so the description adds minimal extra transparency beyond the schema.

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 sentences: a clear purpose statement, a usage context, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear example and scope. It could mention the response format (markdown/json) but that is in schema. Overall it is fairly complete for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description provides an example (suchworte and bundesland) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, 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 state/provincial laws (Landesrecht) and distinguishes from siblings like ris_bundesrecht (federal law) by specifying the scope as laws enacted by Austrian federal states.

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 says 'Use this tool to find laws enacted by Austrian federal states', providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the example and scope hint at its specific domain.

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