search_by_regon

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Look up taxpayer details' suggests a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or what taxpayer details are returned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation, identifier, and date format efficiently.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too sparse. It does not describe return values beyond 'taxpayer details', error cases, or the precise meaning of the date parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully specifies that REGON is 9- or 14-digit and gives the date format as YYYY-MM-DD, but it does not explain what the date means (e.g., as-of date, snapshot date, or search date).

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Look up taxpayer details' by REGON. It clearly distinguishes the lookup scope from sibling tools like search_by_nip and search_by_bank_account because the identifier type is stated, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It implies the tool is used when a 9- or 14-digit REGON and date are available, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance against search_by_nip, search_by_bank_account, or search_bulk.

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