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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the data source (FNS registry) and the cost, omitting details about read-only nature, response format, error handling, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this under-discloses critical operational 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?

A single concise sentence that includes the core function and the pricing. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter lookup without an output schema, the description covers the purpose and cost, but lacks details about the return value structure, possible errors, or prerequisites (e.g., valid INN format). An agent would know to call it but not what to expect in response, making it partially complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'inn' parameter. It merely repeats the name and implies it's the tax identification number, but does not specify format (e.g., digit count), validation rules, or any special handling. This barely adds value 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 action (checking status) on a specific resource (FNS registry for self-employed by INN). It clearly distinguishes this from the siblings (e.g., inn_lookup) by specifying the NPD context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage: to obtain self-employed (NPD) status for a given INN. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like inn_lookup. However, the NPD specificity provides clear context, so an agent can infer the appropriate scenario, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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