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 real behavioral context — the listed data sources and that name matching is exact-by-alias — but says nothing about return format, confidence/matching threshold, 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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core action, followed by the input alternatives. Efficient, though the parenthetical list of sources and repeated digit constraints make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

Covers scope, sources and accepted inputs, which is adequate given five optional parameters and no nested objects. However, with no output schema the description leaves the return shape and what counts as a hit (exact alias match only?) unexplained, which an agent would need.

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 schema already calls INN optional when name+year are supplied, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by laying out the OR relationship between the two input paths and stating the exact-alias matching rule that governs the name fields.

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?

Names a specific verb (проверка) and resource (физлицо по международным санкционным спискам), enumerates the covered lists (OFAC, EU, UK, ООН) and the two lookup keys. The 'физлицо' scoping cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling check_sanctions_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?

Implies when to use it by describing the two accepted input modes (INN or name+year), but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternative (e.g., check_sanctions_org for organizations). Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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