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 fully covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful clarification that the date refers to the extract date rather than the registration date, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering for what can be an open-world, potentially large result set.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the date-semantics caveat parenthetically attached; no filler. Slightly less than ideal only because the region mention is redundant with the schema.

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, but the description tells the agent the payload is a list of INNs, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile; for a 2-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, with pagination/volume being the only notable omission.

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% and the schema itself richly documents both parameters, including the region code semantics (КПП digits for organizations, ОГРНИП digits for ИП). The description only repeats that region filtering is possible and that date is the extract date, adding little 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+resource: returns the list of INNs of organizations whose EGRUL extract changed on a given date. The word 'организаций' implicitly separates it from the entrepreneur-oriented siblings (updated_entrepreneurs, new_entrepreneurs), but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary versus new_organizations.

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 only usage-relevant sentence clarifies which date to pass ('дата выписки, не регистрации'), but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as new_organizations, search_organizations or updated_entrepreneurs, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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