regdata_slovakia_rpvs_ubo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API key is needed and returns PEP flags and authorised persons. However, it does not confirm read-only behavior, rate limits, or other constraints, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and includes usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral aspects. It suggests using 'describe' for field details, compensating for missing output schema. Minor gaps in return format description.

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% (one optional parameter 'maxItems' with a clear description). The description mentions freeform input but does not detail search fields beyond examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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: scraping Slovak beneficial owners register by IČO or name. It specifies the verb (search/scrape), resource (beneficial owners), and geography (Slovakia RPVS), distinguishing it from siblings that target other countries 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 advises passing a flat search object and suggests calling 'regdata_describe' with the slug if unsure of fields. This provides actionable guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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