get_company_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description discloses nothing about return format, the size of a full EGRUL extract, error behavior for invalid INNs, or any rate/token constraints. For an un-annotated tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the domain term 'EGRUL' is left undefined, so a reader unfamiliar with Russian business registers gains little from the wording beyond the action itself.

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?

Complexity is low (one fully-covered parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so the minimum bar is modest. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description should clarify what a 'full EGRUL extract' contains or how it differs from get_company_brief; that differentiation is missing, leaving the agent to guess at scope.

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 coverage is 100% (the inn parameter is already described as 'INN of the company for full EGRUL extract'). The description's 'by INN' reinforces the lookup key but adds no format detail (e.g., 10 vs 12 digits, digit-only validation). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the payload.

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 (Get), a specific resource (full EGRUL extract), and an identifier (by INN). The qualifier 'full' hints at a contrast with the sibling get_company_brief, but it does not name that distinction explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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 on when to use this over alternatives. It does not state that this is the comprehensive variant versus get_company_brief, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., individuals vs legal entities). The agent must infer usage from the 'full' qualifier and sibling names.

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