get_arbitration_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and filter, offering no information about return format, pagination, error conditions, or any side effects. This is barely more informative than a tautology.

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 with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description does not explain what the returned data looks like, whether it is a list, if there are limits, or any other operational details. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, this is a significant gap that leaves an agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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 schema already fully covers the single parameter with a description ('INN of the company'), and the description merely repeats it as 'by INN.' Since coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('arbitration court cases') with a clear filter ('by INN'). It is distinct from sibling tools like financial statements or licenses, but it does not explicitly name or compare to any sibling, so it falls short of the highest clarity score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or situations where this tool is inappropriate. The description implies via its name that it is for arbitration cases, but it does not articulate any decision logic.

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