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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what the response format is. For a simple getter, this is minimal but insufficient for full transparency—an agent cannot know side effects or data source behavior. The description only lists content, not 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 key content (company context) and specifies categories. It is efficient with no fluff. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing specifics), it earns a 4 for appropriate brevity and clarity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information about what the tool returns. It lists contacts, websites, and discovery URLs, but does not specify the format, structure, or whether these are arrays or objects. For an agent to use the result effectively, it would benefit from more detail about the response shape. The description is adequate for a basic getter but lacks completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 params, this scores 4. The description does not add anything about parameters because none exist, which 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?

The description 'Контекст компании: контакты, сайты, llms/MCP discovery URLs' clearly states the tool returns company context (contacts, websites, discovery URLs). It is a specific getter for company information and the resource is implied by the name. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_machine_detail, the focus on company-level data is distinct enough. Score 4 for clarity without strong sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists content without any context about scenarios (e.g., 'use this when you need company contact details or discovery endpoints'). Sibling tools like get_machine_detail or get_faq are not mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone. This is a gap for a getter tool.

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