ris_regierungsvorlagen

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Search' and 'Contains government proposals', lacking details on read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, read-only is implied but not confirmed.

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 example queries, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no 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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers basic purpose but omits details on pagination behavior, default sort order, response format nuances, and what fields are returned. Adequate but with gaps.

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 meaning for three parameters via examples (suchworte, einbringende_stelle, beschlussdatum) but does not enrich the other eight parameters like titel, im_ris_seit, or pagination.

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 Government Bills (Regierungsvorlagen) and specifies it's for legislative history and parliamentary materials. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ris_bundesrecht or ris_judikatur.

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 'Use this tool for legislative history and parliamentary materials' and provides example queries, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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