regdata_california_sos_business

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 500-match limit, incomplete result reporting, and that no API key is required. However, it omits details on rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus two brief warnings—with all information front-loaded. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output fields, key behavioral caveats, authentication needs, and extensibility. It lacks details on return format and error handling, but the provided information is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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% with parameter descriptions. The main description adds value by explaining that searchQueries can include entity numbers, that maxResultsPerQuery has a default of 50 to avoid surprise charges, and that additional parameters beyond the schema are accepted (via regdata_describe). This provides meaningful context beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the tool as a scraper for the California Secretary of State business registry, listing specific data fields (entity name, number, status, etc.) and search methods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other jurisdictions or registries.

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 explains how to search (by name or entity number) and warns about the 500-match limit, advising users to narrow terms if results are incomplete. It also mentions no API key is needed and points to regdata_describe for advanced fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other California-specific siblings (e.g., regdata_california_ucc_lien), slightly reducing guidance on alternatives.

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