regdata_ekw_ksiegi_wieczyste

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: keyless access, no proxy/API key needed, pay-per-result pricing, and an optional cap on billed items. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for this tool's simplicity.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter hint. 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?

Given no output schema and one parameter, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, input format, and pricing. It could mention the expected output structure, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the schema describes maxItems, the description adds significant value by explaining that the search input is a freeform flat object (e.g., name, tax ID) and matches Apify input schema. This clarifies how to use the tool 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's purpose: extracting property data from Poland's Electronic Land Registry, listing specific data types (ownership, mortgages, restrictions). It distinguishes from siblings like regdata_poland_krs_financial by specifying the land registry context.

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 clear when-to-use guidance (property due diligence and credit-risk checks) and instructs to call regdata_describe if unsure of fields. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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