regdata_poland_parliamentary_pep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the data source ('Official Sejm API source') but fails to disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or that it's a read operation. This is a significant gap.

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 sentences: first clearly states tool purpose, second gives usage instruction. No filler, essential information front-loaded.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and usage hint. However, it does not describe the output structure (fields) or how to construct the search input beyond a vague example. The recommendation to use describe helps, but completeness is moderate.

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 only parameter (maxItems) is well-described in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying that the input is a freeform object matching Apify input schema, and that search fields are not explicitly listed. This compensates for the lack of parameter details in the schema beyond maxItems.

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 the tool scrapes Polish Sejm members for KYC/AML, specifying the data fields (names, DOB, party, district, profession) and the official source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover different registries or countries.

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 instructs to pass the search input as a flat object and recommends calling regdata_describe with the slug if unsure of fields. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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