regdata_california_ucc_lien

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the registry rejects searches matching >1000 filings, reports refusal distinctly from 'no liens', and notes that advanced fields beyond schema are accepted. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention authorization/rate limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and resource. Every sentence adds value: purpose, returned data, error handling guidance, and extensibility. 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, parameter hints, error behavior, and additional parameter extensibility. It mentions data returned but could explicitly state it returns list results. Overall fairly complete.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond schema for 'searchQueries' (contains-match, name specificity warning) and 'maxResultsPerQuery' (default 50 to avoid surprise charges, set 0 for no limit). Other parameters like 'filedTo' and 'filedFrom' are adequately explained in schema and description adds little.

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 the California Secretary of State UCC filing index by debtor or secured-party name and lists returned data (filing number, type, status, dates, parties). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like regdata_california_sos_business, which searches business entities.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides advice on narrowing broad searches and mentions no API key needed, but lacks explicit context on tool selection among siblings.

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