elba_find_contractor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals that name-based matching is less reliable than INN, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether partial/fuzzy matches can return multiple contractors, or what happens when filters are omitted (all parameters are optional).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key reliability hint is embedded efficiently. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter, zero-coverage schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with all parameters optional and no schema descriptions, the definition should clarify what an empty call does, how kpp combines with inn, and how this differs from elba_lookup_inn/elba_get_contractor.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers inn and name only loosely (INN is the reliable key) and never mentions kpp at all, leaving one parameter completely undefined and no format hints for any of them.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Найти контрагента в Эльбе') with the lookup keys stated (ИНН and/or name), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate from the closely related siblings elba_get_contractor and elba_lookup_inn, which look like plausible substitutes.

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 parenthetical 'надёжнее' implies a preference for searching by INN over name, which is mild when-to guidance. It never says when to use this instead of elba_lookup_inn or elba_get_contractor, 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.