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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are paginated with one org having thousands of versions, and the response includes total and has_more. It stops short of describing ordering beyond the offset note, but it meaningfully enriches the annotation profile.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the workflow advice. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure could be split for faster scanning.

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, and the description compensates by naming the response fields (total, has_more) and the per-item content, plus the pagination strategy and the hand-off to org_filing_snapshot. Nothing an agent needs to call or chain it is missing.

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%, so limit, offset and inn_or_ogrn are already documented, including the oldest-version offset semantics. The description restates the pagination workflow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists historical versions of the ЕГРЮЛ/ЕГРИП extract for an org/ИП, and names exactly what each item carries (version date and xml_file_id). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling org_filing_snapshot, so an agent can route 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('вопросы про историю изменений', e.g. all directors/founders over time) and a concrete workflow: fetch the version list here, page through with offset if needed, then inspect individual versions via org_filing_snapshot. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated.

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