get_company

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

With no annotations, the description does not disclose non-obvious behaviors such as rate limits, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. It does list the types of data returned (managers, founders, licenses, taxes, etc.), which provides some context but lacks critical behavioral details.

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 Russian sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, without unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more structured by splitting into two sentences for readability, but it remains clear.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers core aspects: purpose, input parameters, and output categories. However, it does not clarify whether at least one of OGRN or INN is required, nor does it mention error cases or performance characteristics.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (ogrn, inn, source). The description adds value by specifying that OGRN must be 13 digits and INN 10 digits, and that the 'source' parameter returns raw XML data. This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Получить' (get), the resource 'сведения об организации из ЕГРЮЛ' (company data from EGRUL), and the input methods 'по ОГРН или ИНН' (by OGRN or INN). It lists the types of data returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_entrepreneur (individual entrepreneurs) and get_person (individuals).

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 description indicates when to use the tool: to get company information by OGRN or INN. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it returns data about organizations (not individuals). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the search tool.

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