company_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a real caveat: without paid Sbis access, contacts and headcount are returned masked (contacts_masked), which tells the agent to expect partial data. It does not cover other behavior such as invalid-INN handling, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 no filler; the field list is front-loaded and the masking caveat follows as a qualification. The dense comma-separated field enumeration is efficient, though the stray line break slightly hurts formatting.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description still adds value by flagging masked data and listing covered fields. Missing only routing guidance against the many sibling tools.

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 0% and the single parameter 'inn' has only a title, so the description must compensate. Saying the card is looked up 'по ИНН' identifies the parameter as a company tax identifier, adding modest meaning beyond the schema. It gives no format, validation, or example for the INN value.

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 resource (company card) keyed by INN and enumerates the fields returned: status, all OKVED codes, addresses, director, revenue, headcount, contacts. That is far more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like company_financials or search_companies, which overlap on revenue and company lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to call this before or instead of company_financials, company_vacancies, or search_companies. The only implicit signal is that the tool takes an INN, which presupposes the agent already has one. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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