regdata_polish_premises

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the paid LinkedIn budget (maxEnrich), rate limiting (minIntervalMs), headcount estimation methods (including limitations like ±50-100% for industrial sites), and that the footprint estimator uses free APIs not counted against budget. It also notes that large offices are not cleanly identifiable. It does not explicitly state read-only or destructive nature, but the context implies data retrieval.

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 relatively long but well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and then covers key parameter behaviors. Each sentence adds value, though some details (like the explanation of headcount methods) could be slightly condensed. Overall, it is well-organized and informative without being overly verbose.

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 19 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level output description ('One row per premise ... with industry, address, company age, and ownership') and mentions that advanced fields are documented elsewhere. It also leverages sibling context (many Polish regdata tools) to position itself. While output details are not exhaustive, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: e.g., for 'maxEnrich' it explains cost per call and that the footprint estimator is free; for 'headcountMethod' it explains how 'auto' chooses; for 'minIntervalMs' it gives rate limit rationale. This extra context greatly aids parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Build prospect lists at the physical-site level from the Polish REGON registry.' It specifies the resource (premises/jednostki lokalne), the action (build lists), and key features (filtering by region, industry, etc.). The title and content distinguish it from sibling tools like regdata_polish_regon (company-level).

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 provides context on when to use this tool (for physical-site level prospects) and mentions that advanced fields are documented in regdata_describe. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with regdata_polish_regon or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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