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.