get_legal_cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only describes inputs and filtering, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return data structure. This is a significant gap for a tool with 12 parameters.

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, well-structured sentence in Russian that efficiently lists the core functionality and key filters. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain pagination behavior beyond 'постраничный вывод', nor does it clarify required vs optional parameters (e.g., OGRN/INN), error cases, or the shape of the response. This lack of completeness hinders correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description provides a high-level overview of supported filters but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it mentions filtering by role and dates but does not clarify interactions (e.g., both role and actual filters). Baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves arbitration cases for an organization or sole proprietor using OGRN/OGRNIP or INN. It lists supported filters (role, dates, status, claim amount) and pagination. Distinct from sibling tools like get_company or get_person, which focus on different entities.

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?

Description provides clear context on what the tool does and its filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention required parameters (e.g., at least one of OGRN or INN is needed). Exclusions or prerequisites are absent.

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