get_statutory_chain

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It explains the heuristic nature, noise for common surnames, and auto-skipping with notes, which annotations do not cover.

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, followed by caveats. It uses about five sentences with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact without losing meaning.

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 tool's complexity (heuristic, noisy, surname-based), the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and alternatives comprehensively. It adequately prepares the agent for expected behavior, even without an output schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, though it implicitly ties the ICO to surname rarity, which is minor additional context.

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 performs a surname-based heuristic walk through statutory bodies of related Czech companies, specifically for shell-company unwinding with rare surnames. It distinguishes itself from a true UBO source, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use (shell-company unwinding with rare surnames) and when not to use (common surnames like Novák, Zima, Kolář). It provides an alternative (ESM registry) for actual beneficial ownership, giving clear guidance.

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