regdata_crbr_beneficial_owners

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses billing model (pay-per-result), return structure (structured UBO data), and input guidance (flat object). It does not address failure modes, rate limits, or data freshness, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

Five sentences, each purposeful: purpose, usage, output, pricing, pairing, input guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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 adequately describes return fields and data structure. It addresses the main use case (Polish UBO verification) and potential parameter confusion by pointing to regdata_describe. Additional context like billing and pairing covers operational completeness.

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?

Only one parameter (maxItems) with schema coverage 100%. The description adds value by explaining maxItems caps billing items, and provides critical context for the freeform search input expected as additional properties, advising to consult regdata_describe for exact fields.

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 identifies the tool as a Poland CRBR beneficial owners scraper for KYC/AML, specifies search keys (NIP or KRS), and lists returned fields (names, citizenship, control nature, ownership %). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like regdata_knf_registry or regdata_krz_debtor.

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: pay-per-result, no subscription, pairs with debtor and KNF checks, and recommends calling regdata_describe first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the pairing suggests complementary use cases.

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