regdata_poland_krs_financial

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Pay-per-result' (cost implication) and mentions parsing XML/XHTML/iXBRL, but omits details on safety (read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or any destructive potential.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the purpose and key actions. It could be slightly tightened (e.g., 'Extract structured financial statements from official Polish KRS filings') without losing clarity.

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, the description lists example extracted items (assets, equity, etc.) and mentions JSON output. It also explains the input structure reasonably well. Missing details on pagination, error handling, or exact return format.

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 only describes 'maxItems' with a brief description; the explanation of passing a 'flat object' with fields like 'name, tax ID, or registration number' adds critical context beyond the schema, especially since additionalProperties allows freeform input.

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 uses specific verbs ('Extract', 'Parses') and clearly identifies the resource ('Poland KRS financial statements'). It lists exact financial items (balance sheets, income statements, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like regdata_krs_fullnames which deals with company names.

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 usage in 'credit-risk or M&A due-diligence workflows' and advises calling regdata_describe first if uncertain about input fields. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives.

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