get_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves history, but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'main changes'. The hint about INN for individuals adds minimal behavioral context.

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 concise: one main sentence in Russian with a clarifying follow-up. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a usage hint but lacks details on return format, pagination, or scope of 'main changes'. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool with two optional parameters.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining the combined use of parameters (OGRN/OGRNIP or INN) and a specific usage hint for individuals to use INN for complete history, which goes beyond the schema strings.

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 tool retrieves the history of major changes for organizations, individual entrepreneurs, or affiliated individuals using OGRN/OGRNIP or INN. It specifies the entity types and identifiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely fetch current details (e.g., get_company, get_person).

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 implies usage for obtaining change history and adds a conditional hint for individuals to use INN for complete history. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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