Sonstige Sammlungen durchsuchen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not cover safety. It adds context about application-specific parameters and example queries, but does not detail pagination or error behavior.

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 well-structured with bullet points for applications and examples. It is concise without superfluous content, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 (32 parameters) and no output schema, the description adequately lists applications and provides usage hints. However, it does not explain the response format beyond the response_format parameter, leaving some 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 example queries that illustrate parameter combinations (e.g., applikation, suchworte, einbringer), but the schema already describes each parameter's meaning.

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 miscellaneous Austrian legal collections (Sonstige)' and lists the specific applications (e.g., PruefGewO, Avsv). This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other collections like ris_bundesrecht or ris_landesrecht.

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 provides clear context for use ('specialized legal documents and historical materials') and lists the eight available applications. While it does not explicitly exclude sibling tools, the enumeration implies which collections fall under this tool.

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