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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the comparison is an exact match on full name plus birth year, so partial/fuzzy lookups will not hit — but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or result semantics.

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 compact sentence with the query target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical could have carried more routing value for the same length.

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 four-parameter read lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nevertheless omits the one thing an agent most needs in this dense family of check_* tools: how this FSIN wanted-list differs from check_mvd_wanted and when each applies.

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 coverage is 100%, with each of the four required fields documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the parameter set ('ФИО + год рождения') and adds the exact-match qualifier, without contributing format or validation detail 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 gives a specific verb ('Проверка') and a precise resource ('база розыска ФСИН России'), so the agent immediately knows what is being queried. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling check_mvd_wanted, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only implied by naming the database and stating the matching rule (ФИО + year of birth, exact match). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to check_mvd_wanted as the alternative wanted-list lookup, so the agent must infer the choice between the two.

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