Карточка контрагента

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a 'full' card is returned with identity fields, but says nothing about missing-record behavior, error modes, or the default-database fallback. With an output schema present, describing return contents is largely redundant, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action and return content are front-loaded, and the dependency on find_counterparty follows as a compact second clause.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with a full output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, return content, and key provenance adequately. Only the optional database parameter's default behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine provenance the schema lacks: it tells the agent that the Ref_Key value must be sourced from find_counterparty rather than invented. It says nothing about the optional 'database' parameter, though the schema already documents that fully.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает полную карточку контрагента по его Ref_Key') and enumerates the returned fields (ИНН/КПП, наименования, код). It also explicitly separates this tool from the sibling find_counterparty by stating that the key comes from there, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a clear usage chain: obtain the Ref_Key via find_counterparty, then call this tool to get the full card. There is no explicit when-not or mention of the history/reconciliation siblings (get_customer_history, get_reconciliation) that also take a counterparty, so routing is implied rather than fully enumerated.

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