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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's addition of the external registry name (Федресурс) corroborates the open-world nature but adds little else — no mention of data latency, coverage limits, or result meaning. Adequate but thin against an already-annotated 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?

One compact sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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, read-only registry lookup with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could state what the check yields (bankruptcy presence/records) to be fully self-contained, but nothing needed to invoke it is missing.

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 100% and the single 'inn' parameter is fully documented in the schema (10 digits for organizations, 12 for individuals). The description only restates 'по ИНН', adding no format or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Проверка') plus the resource ('Единый федеральный реестр сведений о банкротстве / Федресурс') and the lookup key ('по ИНН'). That is enough to separate it from siblings like check_sanctions_org or check_disqualified, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance beyond the implied name. An agent gets no signal, for example, about whether this covers both legal entities and individuals or how it relates to the disqualified/sanctions checks in the sibling set.

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