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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a registry check rather than a document verification, but says nothing about result semantics, latency, or rate limits, so it contributes only modest extra context.

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 dense sentence with the resource stated first and the input distinction last; nothing is wasted. It is slightly cramped by the dual org/person clause but remains readable.

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 check with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient — the only real gap is that the return value (disqualified or not) is not characterized and no output schema exists to cover it.

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%: the single inn parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 10/12-digit meaning and the note that it is a public registry number. The description only restates the digit-count rule, adding no semantics 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?

Names a specific verb (проверка) and resource (реестр дисквалифицированных лиц ФНС), and specifies the two INN forms it accepts, which implicitly separates it from the by-name and by-person siblings. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from check_disqualified_by_org_name or check_disqualified_by_person, leaving that inference to the reader.

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?

Usage is implied by the input contract: use when you have a 10- or 12-digit INN. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to the related sibling tools for name-only or person lookups.

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