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 that only active/current suspensions are returned, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not describe auth needs, rate limits, or return shape.

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 wasted words; the scope ('действующие') and resource are stated before the input qualifier.

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 one-parameter check tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is adequate but does not explain what a return value looks like (e.g., whether empty means no blocks or what data fields are present). No output schema exists, so some return-shape guidance would improve completeness.

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 (inn) is fully documented in the schema with pattern and meaning. The description only repeats 'по ИНН' without adding format or validation details 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?

States a specific resource (current suspensions of account operations / FNS account blocks) and scope (действующие) with the input (по ИНН). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling check_* tools.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related checks. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and resource wording.

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