tax_get_legal_person_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response size limitations.

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 sentence listing key details and includes a Georgian translation for local context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though the translation adds slight redundancy.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately lists returned fields. However, it lacks information on possible errors, return format, or behavior when the code is invalid, which would improve completeness.

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 a single parameter (said_code) described as 'Legal entity identification code'. The description does not add extra meaning, format hints, or examples beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 legal entity details and lists specific fields (name, form, address, status, responsible persons). While it distinguishes itself from many sibling 'get_' tools by focusing on legal persons, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like tax_get_payer_info.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for legal entities, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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