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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the upstream source (FNS/Rosstat) and the nature of the data, but it says nothing about coverage limits, latency, or what happens when data is unavailable.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with the scope and source. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal enough that it could have carried one more clause of guidance without bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally indicate the shape of the return (per-year financial fields). It gestures at this with '(revenue, taxes, etc.)' and the source, which is adequate for a read-only lookup, but the 'etc.' leaves the returned field set underspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%: both inn (10-digit pattern) and year (optional, all years if omitted) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 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 names a specific resource (financial reporting of an organization by year) with clear examples of the fields returned (revenue, taxes) and the data source (FNS/Rosstat). This makes the tool's function clear without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as org_accounting_files or org_filing_history.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives among the many org_* siblings, and no exclusions. The agent can infer this retrieves financials, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over org_accounting_files, org_filing_history, or org_rating.

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