get_norm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds genuine behavioral context by asserting the source is authoritative and 'verbatim' from official repositories, which matters for trustworthiness. However, it omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown law/section), coverage limits for the statutory corpus, and any access requirements.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: source fidelity, jurisdiction scope, and concrete examples.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotation gap is partially offset by the description's source-fidelity claim. Still, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage or error guidance, the definition is only minimally sufficient for a lookup tool whose inputs are easy to get wrong.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. The enumerated law abbreviations (BGB, ZPO, KSchG, StGB, RVG, AufenthG) usefully imply the expected format for 'law', but the 'section' parameter's expected syntax (e.g., '§ 823' vs. '823') is left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precisely scoped resource ('official, verbatim German federal or state statutory law') drawn from a named source class ('official government repositories'). The resource domain makes it inherently distinguishable from siblings like search_precedents, get_decision, and compute_deadline, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 only what the tool does, not when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no guidance on when to use get_norm vs. search_precedents or get_decision for legal research, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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