regdata_california_ucc_lien

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API key is needed and suggests a preliminary step (regdata_describe). It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or any destructive actions, which is acceptable for a search tool but leaves some gaps.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It starts with the core purpose, then details returned data, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no filler 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 has only one defined parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage steps and data returns. It could elaborate on the effect of maxItems or pagination, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 defines only maxItems (optional) and allows additional properties. The description explains that the main input is the registry's search fields (flat object) and points to regdata_describe for exact fields, compensating for the free-form schema. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 performs a California UCC Lien Search by debtor or secured party name, specifying the registry (California Secretary of State) and the data returned (filing number, UCC type, status, dates, parties). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like regdata_california_sos_business.

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 to pass the registry's search input as a flat object and to call regdata_describe first if unsure of fields, and notes no API key needed. This provides context on preparation and prerequisites, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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