krs_search_company

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: it uses a specific government database (Biała Lista VAT MF), what data fields are returned (name, REGON, KRS, address, management, shareholders, bank accounts), and the limitation that name search returns instructions rather than results. Since no annotations are provided, the description compensates well.

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 main purpose. It uses three clear sentences. The only minor issue is that it could be slightly more structured with a brief summary upfront.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's data source, returned fields, and key limitation well. It could be slightly more complete by noting pagination or max_items effect, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the NIP preference and name limitation but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 for business entities (Szukaj podmiotu gospodarczego) and specifies it uses the White List of VAT taxpayers returning detailed data by NIP number. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that the public KRS API does not support search by name, so NIP is preferred.

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 explicitly recommends using NIP as the preferred method and explains why name search is not supported. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or mention alternatives for name-based search (e.g., ceidg_search_business).

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