regdata_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions the output (tool names and returns) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The action 'List' implies idempotence, but behavioral details like no destructive actions are missing. Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 that front-load the key information (number of actors, categories, jurisdictions, and purpose). Every word adds value, no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains what the tool returns (tool name and return info). It also provides context about the domain (KYC/AML, credit-risk, etc.) and the number of jurisdictions. The sibling list reinforces the need for this catalog tool. The description is complete for its purpose.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. There is no need to explain parameters. The description adds value by stating what the tool returns (tool name and what each returns), which goes beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool with clear output context.

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 'List all 29 getregdata business-registry actors' with specific categories and jurisdictions, and explicitly indicates it returns tool names and descriptions. It distinguishes itself from sibling registry tools by advising 'Call this first to discover which registry tool to use.'

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this first to discover which registry tool to use.' This clearly communicates when to use this tool relative to its siblings. It does not list alternative tools explicitly, but the sibling list and the instruction imply that this is a discovery tool.

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