search_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and the enumerated dimensions convey what can be filtered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of how filters combine, result limits, or pagination behavior. Adequate but with clear 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?

A single tightly packed sentence with zero waste. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by an efficient enumeration of search dimensions. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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?

For a tool with 28 optional parameters, no annotations, and rich filter semantics (TERC codes, address types, status flags, sort behavior), a one-line description is thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not disclose how multiple filters interact, whether an empty query returns the entire register, or any caveats about the search. This is a clear completeness gap for such a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 28 parameters with defaults and formats; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds marginal organizational value by grouping parameters into semantic categories (registry numbers, PKD codes, status flags, address), but it does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names a precise resource (organizations in the Polish National Court Register), and enumerates concrete search dimensions (name, registry numbers, legal form, PKD codes, status flags, address, pagination). It is immediately distinguishable from its siblings, which are all 'get_*' lookups by exact identifier.

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 usage context is implied: this is clearly the criteria-based search tool among siblings that fetch specific organizations or persons by ID. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over get_organization (e.g., 'use this when you don't know the KRS number'), nor does it name any alternative or exclusion condition.

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