get_company_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is established. The description adds value by specifying the content (requisites, TIN, accounts) beyond the annotation. No behavioral contradictions; the description aligns with the read-only expectation. However, it does not mention any limitations or prerequisites, which is acceptable for a simple no-parameter tool.

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, concise sentence in Russian that communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is earned. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details. Excellent structure.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description provides a solid overview of what it returns. It could be more complete by mentioning that output is about the current authenticated organization or that accounts listing is included, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's use case.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to document. This is appropriate and complete for a parameterless tool.

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 that the tool returns client organization information (requisites, TIN, list of accounts). The verb is implied by the tool name, and the description provides specific detail about the resource. It distinguishes well from siblings which focus on accounts, balance, transactions, and payments.

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 vs alternatives. There is potential confusion with sibling 'get_accounts' since the description includes 'list of accounts' as part of the output. Without usage guidelines, an agent might select this tool when specifically needing account listing, despite a more specific sibling existing.

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