regdata_spain_concursal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions no API key requirement and that results include roles (debtor, disqualified, administrator). However, it does not clarify if the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or whether data is cached. Basic transparency is present but could be enhanced.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding essential usage notes without extraneous detail. Every sentence serves a purpose: function, example search criteria, and a helpful tip.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It covers what the tool searches, how to use it, and a fallback for uncertain input fields. No gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has one optional parameter with a clear description. Schema description coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the input is freeform and matches the actor's Apify input schema, and suggests using regdata_describe for exact fields. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 searches Spain's public insolvency register by debtor name or NIF and returns role information. It uses specific verbs ('Search', 'Returns') and resource ('Registro Público Concursal'). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools which target other registries or jurisdictions.

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 guidance on prerequisites: no API key needed, and suggests calling regdata_describe first if unsure of exact input fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings for similar tasks, leaving some ambiguity about selection criteria.

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