get_register_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It implies a read but never states side effects, permission requirements, pagination, or error behavior; 'Returns register details' is the only behavioral statement and is trivial.

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 keyword block ('register of interests, published register, transparency') is search-oriented filler, and the Args/Returns scaffold restates the opening sentence. The core purpose is front-loaded, so it is functional but has removable 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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it does state the lookup target. However, with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent gets no behavioral or argument-level context to call it correctly versus its many siblings.

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% — register_id is typed as integer with no field description. The description's 'register_id: Register ID.' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, or example of a valid ID, so the schema gap is not compensated.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific Register of Interests by ID') plus keyword tags, so an agent knows what it does. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_registers_of_interests (list vs. by-ID) or get_interest_by_id (register vs. individual interest), which matters in this crowded namespace.

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?

'Use to retrieve a specific published interest register by its ID' implies the usage context but never states when to prefer this over get_registers_of_interests, search_roi, or get_interest_by_id. No exclusions or prerequisites are offered, leaving routing to inference.

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