search_by_krs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'look up' without disclosing potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether the result includes the full entity data or just confirmation of existence.

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?

Single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundant 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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description is mostly sufficient, but it lacks a description of the return value or behavior for invalid KRS numbers, and the absence of an output schema leaves the agent to guess what 'look up' returns.

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 schema only defines 'krs' as a string, but the description adds critical format detail ('10-digit court-register number'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description states 'Look up a Polish business entity by KRS (10-digit court-register number)', which clearly identifies the resource (Polish business entity), the specific identifier (KRS), and the unique scope (court-register number), distinguishing it from siblings that search by REGON/NIP.

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 when a KRS is available but does not explicitly discuss alternatives like search_by_regon or search_by_nip, nor when to prefer search_bulk.

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