check_disqualified

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only operation, HTTPS side effect, required token (MCP_FNS_CALC_TOKEN), and input constraints (at least one of inn/fio required). It also notes the indicative nature of results.

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 concise with 5 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose (overall purpose, when to use, when not to use, side effects, returns). No redundant information, and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, parameter requirements, and return format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one of inn or fio is required (schema marks both as optional) and explains the purpose of each parameter, elevating the score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Match against FNS disqualified persons register by INN or FIO.' It specifies the resource (disqualified persons register) and the action (match), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different checks or calculations.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use ('compliance screen before appointing director/signatory') and when-not-to-use ('sole evidence for legal decisions — result is indicative, verify manually'), along with the required input conditions ('provide inn or fio'). This is exemplary guidance.

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