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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that matching is exact-name rather than fuzzy, but says nothing about hit semantics, ambiguity handling, or rate limits beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose leads and the sibling disambiguation is parenthetical. It is appropriately sized, though it carries no formatting or structural aids.

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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, exactness, and alternative-routing context. What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is essentially present.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents org_name. The phrase 'по точному наименованию' reinforces the exact-match requirement, which is meaningful but adds little beyond the schema description 'Точное наименование организации'.

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 names a specific verb (Проверка = check), a specific resource (реестр дисквалифицированных лиц ФНС = FNS register of disqualified persons), and a precise scope (по точному наименованию организации = by exact organization name). It also explicitly positions itself as a variant of check_disqualified, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening a schema.

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?

It names the alternative (check_disqualified) and the exact condition that selects this tool over it — cases without ИНН. This is an explicit when-to-use rule tied to a named sibling, leaving the routing decision unambiguous.

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