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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output content and does not mention read-only nature, error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a GET-like tool it's likely safe, but without explicit disclosure or annotations, the agent cannot fully assess the behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main output type ('Публичная карточка компании') and lists the key content areas. It is efficient with no filler, though it could benefit from a brief usage note. The structure is clean and scannable.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the jurisdiction parameter, does not specify how errors are handled (e.g., company not found), does not indicate pagination or response size, and does not provide any guidance on prerequisites. For a tool with two required parameters, the description should provide more context to ensure correct invocation.

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 has 50% coverage (identifier described, jurisdiction only as an enum without explanation). The description does not elaborate on either parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. For jurisdiction, the description does not clarify what each enum value (kz, uz, etc.) represents, leaving the agent to infer they are country codes. This is a significant gap since the description could have explained the parameter semantics.

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's function: it returns a public company card in Markdown with specific content sections (status, registration, management, indicators, finances). The verb 'get' is implicit in the name and the description defines a concrete resource and its scope, distinguishing it from search_companies which is about finding companies rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 retrieving a specific company given an identifier and jurisdiction, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus search_companies. Since the sibling tool exists, the description could have stated 'use search_companies to find a company, then use get_company to retrieve details', but it doesn't. The context is clear enough for a knowledgeable agent, but explicit guidance is missing.

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