regdata_poland_parliamentary_pep

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Official Sejm API source' but does not cover rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second elaborates on the dataset, and the third points to additional fields. No redundant information, every sentence contributes.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the tool's purpose and data contents. However, it lacks details on output format or structure, and the additionalProperties flag implies flexibility that is only hinted at. Overall, it meets minimum completeness but not exceptional.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), meeting the baseline. The description adds value by noting that advanced fields beyond the schema are accepted and directing to regdata_describe for the full list, which aids parameter usage beyond schema definitions.

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 it is a Poland Parliamentary PEP scraper for Sejm members, listing specific fields (names, DOB, party, district, profession) and the use case (KYC/AML). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover other Polish 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?

The description implies the tool is for KYC/AML screening but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like regdata_polish_premises or regdata_polish_regon. The mention of regdata_describe for advanced fields is helpful but not a usage guideline.

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