get_contragent_debt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully explains that the debt includes principal, penalties, and state fee, and that lookup is by account or INN. But it does not describe return shape, error behavior, or any requirements beyond the parameter.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The key information—debt components and lookup keys—is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential lookup keys and debt composition. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent must infer return format and must rely on sibling tool names to understand when this tool is preferred over phone/email debt lookups.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does clarify that pa_or_inn can be either a personal account or an INN, which adds meaning beyond the raw property name. It does not specify format, length, or whether both identifiers are accepted simultaneously.

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 identifies the resource (contragent's debt) and the key lookup dimensions: by personal account or INN. The tool name includes 'get', making the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_debt_by_phone or get_debt_by_email, but the identifier-based scoping is enough to distinguish it.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this tool when you have a personal account or INN and need a contragent's debt. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as get_debt_by_phone and get_debt_by_email.

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