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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful data-source context (a corruption-liability register under Art. 19.28), but says nothing about result format or what a hit/miss means.

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 that front-loads the register's legal basis and ends with the lookup key. No filler, though the dense legal phrasing makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-part purpose/usage split.

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, fully documented read-only lookup with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Only the shape of the returned result is unaddressed, and no output schema exists to cover that.

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% and the single parameter's pattern and meaning (10 digits = organization, 12 = individual) are fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats 'по ИНН' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action (проверка/check), a precisely identified resource (the register of legal entities held liable under Art. 19.28 КоАП РФ for corruption offenses), and the lookup key (ИНН). This clearly separates it from generic company lookups, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with neighbouring registers such as check_fedsfm_org or check_inoagent_org.

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: run a check against this specific register by INN. There is no statement of when this register is the right one versus the many other check_* registers, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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