get_contragent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the REST API returns the whole Contragent entity and that a dedicated 'status' field may be absent, which is a significant caveat. It does not mention missing-result behavior, permissions, or other side effects, but the read-only nature is clear from the verb.

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, with the core action first and the important caveat second. No wasted words; the caveat earns its place because it corrects a likely false expectation created by the tool name.

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 low-complexity one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description gives the core behavior and a key caveat. It is still incomplete about when to choose it versus siblings and about what happens when no counterparty is found, so it does not reach fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the single inn parameter is the Russian taxpayer ID used to search, going beyond the schema's bare 'inn' string. It stops short of specifying expected format or validation rules, but for a single well-known identifier this is near-sufficient.

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 states a precise verb (find) and resource (contragent by INN, Contragent entity). It is distinguishable from sibling debt/phone/email/bills tools by being a general entity lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, and the tool name focuses on 'status' while the description says no separate status field may exist.

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 given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_contragent_debt or get_contragent_bills. The intended use (lookup by INN) is implied but not stated as a decision rule, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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