isir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields (spisová značka, start date, current phase) and 'no record' if not found, clarifying that absence is informative. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by return value details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input, output format, and edge case ('no record'). It is complete enough given the annotations provide safety and open-world context.

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?

The single parameter 'ico' has 100% schema coverage with a concise description. The tool description adds context that it is for 'Czech company' (implying legal entity type), which adds slight meaning beyond the schema's mention of 'Czech IČO'.

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 the tool checks for active insolvency proceedings in ISIR for a Czech company by IČO. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('insolvency proceeding') and distinguishes from siblings (poll_isir_events, search_person_insolvency) by focusing on company insolvency.

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 implies usage when you have a Czech company IČO and need insolvency status, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or compare with sibling tools. Context signals show siblings are for polling events and person search, so distinction is logical but not stated.

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

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

Adds beyond annotations: describes feed as append-only, batch size ~1000, pagination behavior. No contradiction with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, description explains return behavior (up to ~1000 events) and pagination, making it fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains `since_id` default 0 starts from beginning of history, and mentions using `last_id` from response. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches comprehension.

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?

Clearly states it pulls a batch of recent ISIR events since a given event id, explaining ISIR as an append-only feed. Differentiates from siblings which deal with ICO insolvency or person insolvency searches.

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?

Provides usage context for compliance monitoring or back-filling an index, and explains pagination with `since_id` and `last_id`. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives to siblings, but context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns only active proceedings by default, but lacks details on pagination, data freshness, or result limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences: first covers action, source, input, and output; second covers use case. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers purpose, input, output type, and use case. Missing details on pagination and result structure but still fairly complete for a search tool.

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 valuable context for DOB: 'Optional but strongly recommended — common names produce many false positives without DOB.' This goes 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 searches ISIR for an individual person by name and optional DOB, returns active insolvency proceedings, and distinguishes itself from siblings (check_ico_insolvency for companies, poll_isir_events for polling) by focusing on person-by-name lookup.

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 mentions KYC and DD workflows as usage contexts but does not explicitly guide when to avoid this tool or compare to siblings. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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