Rechtsinformationen Bund DE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: extensive database coverage limitations (GG not available, SGB I-VIII missing), unreliable date filter warnings, and URL construction format for results. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, or empty result handling.

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?

Appropriately structured with clear markdown headers (What this tool searches, When to use, Limitations). The 'SECONDARY TOOL' flag is front-loaded. While lengthy, every section serves a purpose—particularly the coverage limitations and URL construction which compensate for missing output schema. No significant waste.

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 tool's complexity (legal search with database gaps) and lack of output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains result URL formats, documents critical coverage gaps (missing laws), and provides sibling tool relationships. Adequate for correct invocation despite no return value documentation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial usage context beyond the schema: it warns that temporalCoverageFrom/To 'are unreliable' and advises 'DON'T use date filters' for amendment questions. It aggregates parameter information with usage scenarios, adding value over raw schema definitions.

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 explicitly states it searches the federal legislation database at rechtsinformationen.bund.de for laws, ordinances, and administrative provisions. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is for 'legislation-only results (excludes case law)' and contrasts with 'intelligente_rechtssuche' in the Usage Priority section.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section with checkmarks identifies it as a 'follow-up' tool after intelligente_rechtssuche. The 'Usage Priority' section explicitly states 'For initial queries → Use intelligente_rechtssuche first.' It also warns against using date filters for amendment questions, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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