regdata_msig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions structured JSON output and archive date range, but omits details about potential costs (implied by 'billed dataset items'), execution time, authentication requirements, or error handling. While not contradictory, it lacks depth for a complete behavioral picture.

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, containing two sentences that deliver all key information without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and guidance. One minor point: the sentence is somewhat dense but still efficient.

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 only one defined parameter, the description covers the tool's domain, search capabilities, input format, and a helpful sibling tool reference. It does not explain output structure or result limit behavior beyond maxItems, but the recommendation to use regdata_describe fills that gap partially, making it reasonably 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?

The input schema defines only maxItems with a clear description. The description compensates by specifying that additional properties (name, tax ID, etc.) should be passed as a flat object, which is not in the schema. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, though exact fields are not listed (deferring to regdata_describe).

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 explicitly states it scrapes the Polish MSiG Court Gazette, listing specific notice types (bankruptcy, liquidation, etc.) and specifies full-text search from 2001. The verb 'scraper' and resource 'Polish Court & Economic Gazette' are clear, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings by its unique name and detailed domain coverage.

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 advises passing search input as a flat object and recommends calling regdata_describe with slug 'msig-scraper' if unsure of fields. This provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other registries, hence not a perfect 5.

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