search_micar_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it describes what the tool does, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The return format is also not mentioned.

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 very concise, with a single clear sentence for the purpose and three short lines for parameter details. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description lacks information about the output, despite an output schema existing. It also does not explain the register_slug codes (e.g., what 'other-wp' means). Given the tool's moderate complexity, more context would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that query is a case-insensitive substring or exact LEI, register_slug lists possible values, and member_state is a two-letter code. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though defaults are not mentioned.

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 the ESMA interim MiCAR register by entity name or LEI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like micar_register_changes and micar_register_summary, which have different purposes.

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 for searching the register but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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