parse_requisites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does: each candidate is confirmed by a control sum or nearby text label, and accounts are automatically reconciled with found BIK. This informs the agent about internal verification logic. It does not detail failure modes or return structure, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact: three sentences plus a structured Args block. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds verification details in the following sentences. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter extraction tool with no annotations, the description covers the input, the extraction target, and the verification behavior. It does not specify the output schema, but that is not necessary for invoking the tool correctly. Minor missing details like return format or error behavior prevent a perfect score.

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%, so the description carries the burden of documenting the parameter. The 'Args: text' section explains that text is arbitrary text containing requisites, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'type': 'string'. For a single free-text parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Извлекает' (extracts) with a clear resource ('реквизиты из произвольного текста') and explicitly names the fields found: ИНН, ОГРН/ОГРНИП, КПП, БИК, счета. This differentiates it from the sibling validation tools such as validate_inn or check_counterparty, which check rather than extract.

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 clearly states the intended context: extracting requisites from arbitrary text such as a contract, letter, or invoice. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the extraction-versus-validation distinction in sibling names provides implicit routing. No exclusion criteria are given.

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