Regierungsvorlagen durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint (safe, read-only). The description adds that the tool 'Contains government proposals submitted to parliament,' but this is factual rather than behavioral. It does not elaborate on additional behaviors like pagination limits or search behavior beyond the schema examples.

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 highly concise: three sentences plus example queries. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, provides context in the second, and gives actionable examples. No redundant or 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?

Given 11 optional parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's domain (government bills) and provides examples covering multiple parameter types. However, it does not describe the output format beyond the response_format parameter, but since that parameter is documented, the gap is minor.

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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing three specific example queries demonstrating use of suchworte, einbringende_stelle, and beschlussdatum parameters, which helps agents understand how to combine them effectively.

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 'Search Austrian Government Bills (Regierungsvorlagen)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover other legal sources (e.g., ris_bundesgesetzblatt, ris_judikatur) by focusing on government bills and parliamentary materials.

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,' providing clear usage context. It gives example queries, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, though sibling names imply other tools for different legal documents.

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