check_norm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the checks performed (validity status, revision date, future amendments relative to today), which is meaningful behavioral context, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how errors are handled.

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 quickly establishes the tool's purpose and scope. The phrase 'Критический инструмент' is minor fluff, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully explains what the check returns (status, revision date, future amendments). However, it does not clarify how the four optional input parameters should be combined (e.g., act+article vs. url vs. raw_html), leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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%, so all four parameters (act, url, article, raw_html) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or input-combination guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('проверяет') and resource ('актуальность нормы'), then enumerates exactly what is checked: article validity status, current revision date, and future amendments. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_legislation and get_norm_text, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_legislation or track_bill, nor any when-not conditions. The opening phrase implies its purpose but does not tell the agent how to choose it over siblings.

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