regdata_crbr_beneficial_owners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the read-only nature ('Search') and output fields (names, citizenship, control nature, ownership %), and notes a pay-per-result model. However, it does not discuss rate limits, error handling, authentication, or any destructive aspects. The description is adequate but lacks depth on behaviors beyond the basic read operation.

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 five sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the tool's purpose ('Poland CRBR Beneficial Owners Scraper'), then covers functionality, output, pricing, complementary tools, and extensibility. No wasted words; efficient and informative.

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 covers the return fields well. It mentions the tool's role in KYC/AML, paired checks, and extensibility. It lacks details on pagination, error handling, or typical response size, but overall provides a solid understanding of the tool's capabilities and context among many sibling tools.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions searching by NIP or KRS, which aligns with schema parameters, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for other parameters like dateFrom, dateTo, maxItems, companyName, or queries. The mention of 'Advanced fields... regdata_describe lists them' provides some extra context but does not clarify individual parameter semantics.

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 Polish CRBR beneficial owner registry by NIP or KRS and returns structured UBO data (names, citizenship, control nature, ownership %). It distinguishes itself from siblings like regdata_polish_premises, regdata_polish_regon, and regdata_poland_kyb_check by focusing on beneficial owners for KYC/AML onboarding.

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 provides context for when to use: for Polish beneficial owner verification in KYC/AML onboarding. It mentions complementary tools (debtor and KNF checks) and notes it's pay-per-result with no subscription. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for similar purposes.

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