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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned data fields (including 'signs of unreliable information') and noting it is a brief card, which tells the agent this is a lightweight lookup rather than a full report.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose, required input, and returned fields with no wasted words.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the source registers, the identifier, and the returned fields. It could mention edge cases (e.g., invalid INN, not found), but those are handled by sibling tools.

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 schema itself explains the INN (10/12 digits) and OGRN/OGRNIP (13/15 digits) formats in detail. The description only restates the identifier types without adding further semantic detail, so the baseline of 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 states a specific resource (organization or individual entrepreneur from EGRUL/EGRIP) and the identifier used to find it (INN or OGRN), plus the exact fields returned (name, address, status, signs of unreliable information). This clearly distinguishes it from specialized sibling checks like check_bankrot_org or org_financials, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_organizations or the many check_* tools. It only implies that an INN or OGRN is required, but offers no context on when this lookup is preferable.

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