regdata_portugal_corporate_acts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves published acts with date, entity, municipality, and type, and warns that it is an act register, not a company profile. It also notes the 200-result ceiling implicitly via parameter descriptions. However, it does not detail pagination, rate limits, or error handling, which would enhance transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds relevant details. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds value, such as clarifying the register type and limitation on results. The structure is clear and logical.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (date, entity, municipality, type) and mentions additional fields via regdata_describe. It also discusses the 200-result ceiling and how to work around it. For a scraper tool with 8 optional parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema descriptions by explaining that NIF is preferred, name search is broader and may hit the 200-result ceiling, and that date ranges or district can narrow searches. These insights help agents choose and combine parameters effectively.

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 verb 'Search', the specific resource 'official Portuguese Ministry of Justice register of published corporate acts', and the search criteria 'by NIF or entity name'. It explicitly distinguishes this tool as an act/event register, not a company profile, and the name 'regdata_portugal_corporate_acts' inherently differentiates it from country-specific siblings.

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 when to use the tool (searching corporate acts by NIF or entity name) and notes that 'No acts found' is a valid response, guiding agents to handle empty results. It also references regdata_describe for advanced fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other country-specific tools, though the tool name and context make this intuitive.

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