sbis_list_counterparties

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'search' (implying read-only) but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Critical gaps remain.

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 concise with one sentence plus a parenthetical. No redundancy. However, it could be structured with bullet points or clearer separation of parameters. The brevity is good but at the cost of completeness.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, parameter optionality, and return format. The tool requires more context for effective use.

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 description adds meaning for inn, kpp, and name parameters by stating 'Search counterparties by INN/KPP/name'. However, it does not explain query, page, or pageSize. Schema description coverage is low (17%), so the description partially compensates but is insufficient for all six parameters.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'counterparties' with criteria 'INN/KPP/name'. It conveys the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools (which are all document-related, so differentiation is implicit).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sbis_list_documents or others. The description does not mention when to use or not use this tool, nor any prerequisites or context.

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