regdata_catalog

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature of listing tools and what the output includes (names and return descriptions). No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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?

Description is two sentences, but the second sentence is somewhat long. However, it is well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, and each part earns its place. Minor redundancy could be tightened.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the catalog function, provides practical usage guidance, and covers all needed context for this simple tool.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. No parameter descriptions needed; baseline 4 applies since description does not need to add parameter information.

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 lists all getregdata business-registry tools across 16 jurisdictions with tool names and return descriptions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a catalog, and provides a specific use-case example for Poland.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to find the right single-registry tool for other jurisdictions) and when to prefer a sibling (regdata_poland_kyb_check for Polish companies), with a clear rationale for avoiding chaining.

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