regdata_austria_ediktsdatei

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions it is a scraper with no API alternative, implying external dependency, but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or what happens on failure. Some behavioral context is given but incomplete.

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, and uses clear, direct language. Every sentence contributes information without 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?

Although the description mentions calling regdata_describe for exact fields, it does not describe the output format or what values to expect. For a complex scraper, this leaves gaps. However, the reference to regdata_describe mitigates the incompleteness somewhat.

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 schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter (maxItems). The description adds value by clarifying that input is freeform and provides examples (name, tax ID, registration number), which goes beyond the schema's generic additionalProperties. This helps the agent understand how to structure the search input.

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 scrapes Austrian insolvency data from the Ediktsdatei, listing specific data types (bankruptcies, reorganizations, etc.). It distinguishes itself from other regdata tools that target different registries, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 advises passing a flat object with search input and suggests calling regdata_describe first if unsure. This provides clear context on how to prepare input and when to consult additional documentation, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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