get_proceeding_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('get'), implying no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the resource and action. The output schema likely explains the return value, so the description does not need to. Minor missing context: what exact details are included, but not critical.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description reiterates that the parameter is the proceeding number. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format example). 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a detailed card ('детальную карточку') for a specific enforcement proceeding (IP) by its number. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_individual_debts and check_legal_entity_debts which focus on debt checking. However, 'детальную карточку' is slightly vague; a more precise term like 'full details' would improve clarity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool names imply different purposes (checking debts vs. getting details), so usage context is implicitly clear, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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