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. The description adds the exact-match requirement (full name + year), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe return values, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the operation, the database, and the exact matching rule.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete for invocation. Its main omission is that it does not say what the check returns (e.g., found/not-found or record details), but without an output schema this is a minor gap.

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 all four required parameters (lastname, firstname, middlename, year) are documented in the schema. The description reinforces that these together form an exact-match query, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: checking an individual against the Russian MVD wanted database, with the matching criteria (full name + year of birth, exact match). It is clear enough to separate from most generic lookups, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling check_fsin_wanted, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives, even though a closely related sibling tool (check_fsin_wanted) exists. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose, which is insufficient routing guidance.

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