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 usefully clarifies what the registry actually contains (the kinds of interim measures and their legal basis), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about authorization, rate limits, or result 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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by the enumerated measure types and statutory references. Nothing is wasted, though the legal citations have modest value for an agent choosing a tool.

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 read-only lookup this is broadly sufficient, and the description does convey the domain of the returned data. It stops short of describing the response (e.g. presence/absence semantics or matched-record fields), which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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 the single parameter is already fully documented (10 digits for organizations, 12 for individuals), so the schema carries the load. The description only echoes the lookup key via 'по ИНН' and adds no new constraint or format detail beyond it.

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 resource — the FNS register of interim measures (обеспечительные меры) keyed by ИНН — and enumerates its contents (pledge, seizure of property, prohibition on alienation) with legal citations. It is clearly a registry lookup, distinct in substance from the other check_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions, and no routing to any alternative sibling tool. The scope is only implied by the registry's subject matter, so the agent must infer that this tool answers 'are there tax-authority interim measures against this INN?'

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