Statsnet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the output format (Markdown) and the categories of data returned. However, it says nothing about whether the lookup is read-only, authorization requirements, or what happens when the identifier is not found.

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 with the resource and its payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the parameter complexity involved, but structurally sound.

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 does explain what is returned, which is the main burden. It still omits required context for a multi-jurisdiction lookup: identifier format per jurisdiction, failure behavior, and how it relates to search_companies.

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 50%: 'identifier' is documented as БИН/ИИН but 'jurisdiction' is a bare enum of ~58 country/state codes with no description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the agent to guess which jurisdictions are supported and how identifiers differ per jurisdiction.

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 verb-implied resource (public company card) and enumerates the content sections it returns (status, registration, management, indicators, finances). It is clearly the single-entity lookup counterpart to search_companies, though it never names that sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_companies, nor any prerequisite (e.g. 'use this once you have an exact BIN/IIN; use search_companies to find one'). The distinction from the sibling must be inferred entirely from the word 'card'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return nature (a list of matches carrying identifiers) and the downstream workflow, which is real value. It says nothing about the limit cap (max 20), default jurisdiction behavior, cross-jurisdiction search scope, or result-set size, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose stated first and the return/workflow note second. Well front-loaded; the only minor loss is that the field list and the workflow hint are packed into the same sentence.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks default limit, default/optional jurisdiction semantics, and any sense of result cardinality. The description covers what to search by and what comes back, but not enough to call it fully complete.

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 67%: query and jurisdiction are documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere. The description restates the searchable keys for query (already covered by the schema) and never mentions limit or the jurisdiction enum, so it adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (поиск) and resource (компании и ИП) and enumerates the searchable keys — название, БИН/ИИН, руководитель — so an agent knows what input is acceptable. It also signals the relationship to get_company by noting the result carries identifiers for it, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 phrase 'Возвращает список совпадений с идентификаторами для get_company' implies the intended two-step flow (search here, then fetch details with get_company), which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of when the sibling should be called directly instead.

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