regdata_knf_registry

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'No auth needed' and implies a read-only operation ('extract', 'search', 'export'). It mentions that additional fields are accepted, but does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, data freshness, or whether it modifies data. More explicit safety info would raise the score.

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, with only 6 sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and key capabilities. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. It efficiently covers search, export, format, and advanced options.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers essential aspects: purpose, search methods, export capability, output format (JSON), and a pointer to extended features. Missing details include pagination behavior, result size limits beyond maxResults, and potential performance considerations. However, for a scraper tool, it is fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context like 'Bulk export 75,000+ entities' and points to regdata_describe for advanced fields, which adds value but does not significantly elaborate on the existing schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 KNF Financial Registry Scraper' and specifies the types of entities it extracts (payment institutions, e-money issuers, credit intermediaries, etc.) and search methods (name, NIP, entity type). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are for other registries/countries, by focusing on Polish KNF 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: for searching Polish KNF registries, bulk export, and using structured JSON. It also mentions that advanced fields are available via regdata_describe. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool (e.g., for other countries) or alternatives, though this is implied by the sibling context.

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