get_bankruptcy_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose what specific information is returned, error behavior for invalid or missing INN, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's exact behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is overly vague. It does not clarify what 'bankruptcy proceedings info' encompasses (e.g., current status, case history, court decisions), nor does it distinguish itself from get_arbitration_cases. An agent might call the wrong sibling without additional 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 schema already fully describes the single parameter `inn` with the same wording ('INN of the company'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 but not exceeding it.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('bankruptcy proceedings info') with a key parameter ('by INN'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does and is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_company_details or get_arbitration_cases, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 the sibling tools. The description only states the basic operation; there is no mention of conditions that would make it preferable (e.g., needing bankruptcy-specific data rather than general arbitration cases), nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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