get_company

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 discloses that the response always returns HTTP 200 for a valid INN, and that a 'completeness' field indicates which blocks are filled. This is useful context. However, it does not mention error behavior for invalid INN, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the response structure beyond the block list. Some transparency is present but not exhaustive.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('summary card by INN') and then lists the included blocks. It is efficient with no redundant filler, though slightly long due to the enumerated content. It earns a 4 for clarity and compactness.

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?

The tool is complex, returning multiple data sections, and there is no output schema. The description lists the main blocks and mentions the 'completeness' field and status code behavior, which helps an agent anticipate the response. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid INN) and a more explicit structure of each block. For the complexity, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 schema already provides a full description for the only parameter 'inn' ('ИНН юрлица — 10 цифр.'). The tool description adds no new meaning about the parameter; it only restates that it queries by INN. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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's purpose: it returns a comprehensive company summary card in one request by INN. It lists the content blocks (identity, finances, tax regime, risk flags, trademarks, connections) and implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_company_financials (only financials) or search_companies (search). The verb 'get' and resource 'company card' are specific.

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 implies it is a one-stop-shop for full company data ('summary card in one request'), which suggests using it when a complete overview is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools at all, so an agent might not know that for financials alone it could use get_company_financials. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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