search_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape ('items[] с ИНН, названием, финансовыми показателями и флагами риска') and scope (Russian legal entities), but it does not mention pagination behavior, default status filtering, or any other side effects; those are left to the inline schema or agent inference.

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 two sentences: the first fronts the purpose with filter types, the second summarizes the return format and points to the complementary tool. There is zero wasted wording, and the most important routing information is placed at the end of the second sentence.

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?

Given 10 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, output shape, and a pointer to the sibling for detail retrieval. The 100% parameter schema coverage fills in the parameter semantics, so the main missing piece is a bit more detail on the returned fields or constraints like default status, making it nearly complete but not fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description only summarizes existing filters (revenue, region, OKVED, headcount, bankruptcy status) without adding new semantic meaning. The parameter descriptions themselves already cover semantics like revenue_min being total income rather than just revenue, and region_code being for active status only.

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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: 'Подобрать список российских юрлиц по фильтрам' (select a list of Russian legal entities by filters), and lists concrete filter dimensions. It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_company by directing single-INN detail requests there, so an agent can distinguish the tools without inspecting schemas.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'Для деталей по одному ИНН зовите get_company' (for details on a single INN, call get_company), which clearly indicates when not to use this tool. It does not mention other siblings like get_company_financials, but the list-vs-detail distinction is enough for most use cases.

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