regdata_czech_isir_insolvency

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

The description discloses that no API key is required and outlines the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other side effects. Given no annotations, the description is adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: registry name, search criteria, output, authentication, and supplementary guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, input parameters (with freeform nature), output fields, and usage workflow. Despite no output schema, the listed fields suffice. The suggestion to use regdata_describe for pre-flight check is a helpful completeness touch.

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 describes maxItems, but the description adds critical context: the actual search fields are freeform and determined by the scraper. It directs users to regdata_describe for field details, adding 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 searches the Czech ISIR insolvency register, lists specific parameters (company name, IČO, city), and what data is returned (debtor name, IČO, case reference, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other registries.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: no API key needed, pass input as flat object, and suggests using regdata_describe for exact fields. Does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the context of different registries makes the intended use clear.

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