newdb_check_egrul

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, or coverage limitations. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 that conveys the core purpose and data sources without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-oriented tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned and from where. It lacks edge-case behavior, but the simplicity and schema completeness make it adequately complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, including detailed descriptions for INN and OGRN formats. The description adds no extra parameter information, so it falls at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('full legal entity data') with specific data points (founders, director, authorized capital, status). It also names the data sources (EGRUL and Transparent Business), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on balance, bankruptcy, or passport checks.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need legal entity data from EGRUL. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the scope is unambiguous given sibling tool names that cover different checks.

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