newdb_complex_check_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the aggregated data sources, which is helpful context, but does not mention read-only nature, limitations, error conditions, or any side effects. For a read-only check tool, this is a moderate gap but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and aggregated sources. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 the complexity of aggregating multiple data sources and the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the response structure, how results are presented, or potential caveats (e.g., missing data). This is a significant omission for an agent needing to interpret the tool's output in context.

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 input schema already contains a full description of the 'inn' parameter ('10-digit company INN') with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic details beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline 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 tool performs a comprehensive background check for legal entities using INN, explicitly listing the aggregated sources (EGRUL, FNS account blocks, arbitration courts, bankruptcy, FSSP debts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual data sources or individuals (newdb_complex_check_person).

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 use for comprehensive company verification, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over individual check tools (e.g., newdb_check_egrul) or when a simpler check would suffice. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but the scope is clear enough for basic selection.

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