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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: omitting section returns the entire filing and 'может быть большой', while section bounds the payload. Return shape details remain thin, but the safety profile is already carried by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then mode semantics, then an actionable workflow hint. Every sentence earns its place; slightly dense and untranslated but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry return-value information; it states the output is structured JSON and warns it can be large, and annotations cover the safety profile. Adequate, though the shape of the parsed JSON is only named, not characterized.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning by naming concrete Cyrillic section tags (СвУчредит, СведДолжнФЛ, СвАдресЮЛ, СвОКВЭДОсн) and glossing what each contains, which goes beyond the schema's terse examples.

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?

Names a specific verb (returns parsed content) plus resource (one historical version of an EGRUL/EGRIP filing) and explicitly ties xml_file_id to the sibling org_filing_history, so an agent can distinguish it from the history-list tool without opening either schema.

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?

States the two modes (whole filing vs a single section) with the tradeoff noted, and gives an explicit multi-step workflow for the common goal of collecting all owners over time by iterating versions from org_filing_history with section=СвУчредит.

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