regdata_poland_krs_financial

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses parsing of XML/XHTML/iXBRL, pay-per-result model, and that files over 5MB are linked via key-value store. Also explains that statements larger than maxStatementSizeMB are skipped without charge. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise paragraphs. First sentence states purpose immediately. Every sentence adds value, covering format, use cases, pricing, and additional features. No redundancy.

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?

No output schema; description lists key output fields (balance sheets, income statements, etc.) and formats. Lacks full output structure but provides sufficient context for a data extraction tool. Complexity is moderate and description is adequate without exhaustively detailing all return fields.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description does not add new details about these parameters but mentions advanced fields beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description provides minimal added parameter context.

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?

Description clearly states it extracts structured financial statements (balance sheets, income statements, assets, equity, revenue, net profit) from Polish KRS filings. It specifies the source and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other registries or data types.

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?

Explicitly recommends use in credit-risk or M&A due-diligence workflows. Mentions pay-per-result and that advanced fields beyond schema are listed via regdata_describe. Provides context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements.

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