regdata_uokik_clauses

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no API exists (indicating scraping), mentions JSON output, and points to advanced fields via regdata_describe. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or potential delays inherent to web scraping, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by supporting details (use cases, output format, advanced field reference). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core aspects: purpose, parameters (via schema), output format (JSON), and extensibility. It references regdata_describe for additional fields, but lacks specification of default behavior (e.g., ordering of results) or error handling. Still, it is largely complete for a search tool.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by summarizing search dimensions (defendant, industry, legal category) and noting that additional fields beyond the schema are accepted, which goes beyond the parameter docs and helps users understand flexibility.

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 identifies the tool as a scraper for the Poland UOKiK registry of abusive clauses, specifying the resource (7,500+ banned contract clauses) and actions (search, scrape) along with use cases (legal compliance, consumer protection). It effectively distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific registry and country.

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 implies usage for searching banned clauses but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives from the extensive sibling list. No when-not guidance or explicit comparison to similar tools is provided.

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