search_regon

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the daily rate limit shared with the search method and enumerating possible errors (invalid_regon, invalid_date, not_found, rate_limit_daily, upstream_error). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes.

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 two sentences long and efficiently structured: the first sentence states purpose and use case, the second adds rate limit and error information. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 simple search tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, when to use, rate limit, and errors. It references search_nip for analogy, which implies similar output structure. The absence of an explicit return format is mitigated by the reference to the sibling tool and the simplicity of the operation.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters: 'regon' has a clear description with length constraints, and 'date' has a format and default value. The description reinforces the REGON length but does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it searches by REGON (9 or 14 digits) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_nip by specifying the search key difference. The verb 'wyszukiwanie' (searching) is explicit and the resource is named.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when you know the client's/contractor's REGON rather than NIP, which directly contrasts with search_nip. It also mentions the shared daily rate limit with the search method, providing a concrete usage constraint.

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