Карточка организации (реквизиты)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: for ООО the director comes from the 'Ответственные лица организаций' register only if it is published in OData, otherwise a note is returned telling the user to add it to the OData composition. That graceful-degradation behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent cannot learn from annotations or schema, though nothing is said about not-found or ambiguous-name handling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the subsequent sentences about director resolution and organization selection each carry distinct information. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is compact enough not to be wasteful.

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 an output schema present the description does not need to explain return values, and it still covers the two things an agent must know to call it correctly: how the organization is resolved and what happens when the responsible-persons register is absent from OData. For a two-parameter read-only tool this leaves no meaningful gap.

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 both parameters (database, organization) are already documented, including the name/ИНН/Ref_Key matching modes. The description adds the auto-selection rule when only one organization exists, but this sits in mild tension with the schema's statement that omitting organization returns all organizations of the base, leaving the multi-org default ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the full requisites of a legal entity from 1C settings, and enumerates the concrete fields (ИНН/КПП/ОГРН, наименования, ОКВЭД, bank account, director/chief accountant). This clearly separates it from list-style siblings such as read.system.list_organizations, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 text explains how the target organization is resolved (by name, or automatically when the base holds only one) and notes the ИП-vs-ООО director logic, which implies when the tool is applicable. It never states when to prefer this over read.counterparty.get_counterparty or read.system.list_organizations for discovery, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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