Rechtsinformationen Bund DE MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden and succeeds comprehensively. It discloses critical coverage gaps ('Grundgesetz (GG): NOT in database', 'SGB I-VIII: NOT in database'), failure modes ('lookup will fail or return wrong law'), and describes return values (ELI identifier, version dates, table of contents, URLs) since no output schema exists.

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?

While well-structured with clear markdown sections, the description is excessively verbose with emoji decoration (📖, ✅, ❌, ⚠️) and repetitive examples. The coverage limitations and usage guidelines are critical and earn their place, but the overall length could be reduced by 30-40% without losing essential information.

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?

Comprehensive for a single-parameter lookup tool with 4 siblings and no output schema. Essential domain-specific constraints (database coverage gaps for major laws like GG) are explicitly documented. Return values, example usage, and tool selection priority are all clearly explained, leaving no critical 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'abbreviation' parameter is documented), establishing baseline 3. The description adds valuable domain context by emphasizing 'Standard German law abbreviation' (implying official abbreviations required) and marking it as '(required)', providing semantic clarity beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'direct lookup of German federal laws by standard abbreviations' and 'bypasses semantic search for exact law retrieval.' It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'intelligente_rechtssuche' (for broad research) and 'rechtsprechung_suchen' (for court decisions), establishing a clear, distinct purpose.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with specific sibling alternatives named: 'use intelligente_rechtssuche' for broad research, 'use rechtsprechung_suchen' for court decisions, and 'use deutsche_gesetze_suchen' for full-text search. Also includes 'Usage Priority' guidance stating 'For exact law lookup by abbreviation → Use this tool FIRST'.

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