get_company_brief

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention safety (e.g., read-only), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the actual output contains beyond 'risk summary'. The term 'brief' is vague and does not clarify whether it returns structured data, a text summary, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, object, and key qualifier ('brief' and 'risk summary') in under 10 words. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must set expectations for the agent. It does not clarify what a 'brief company report' includes (e.g., whether it contains financial health, legal risks, or key metrics), nor the response format. Given the existence of several sibling tools with overlapping functions, more detail is needed to help an agent choose correctly and interpret the result. The description is too thin for the 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 fully describes the only parameter 'inn' as 'INN of the company' (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning, such as format examples, validation rules, or additional context about the INN. Since the schema is complete, the baseline is 3; the description neither improves nor hinders parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('brief company report'), the key identifier ('by INN'), and the content nature ('risk summary'). It differentiates from siblings like 'get_company_details' by specifying 'brief' and 'risk summary', which implies a lighter-weight report. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for a quick risk overview, but does not state when NOT to use it or name other tools such as 'get_company_details' for more comprehensive data. An agent would have to infer usage from the 'brief' and 'risk summary' wording.

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