check_ip_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only HTTPS, requires MCP_FNS_CALC_TOKEN, and lists side effects. This is comprehensive for a simple lookup tool.

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 (6 lines) and well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when to use, when not to use, side effects, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 has only one parameter and the description mentions the output schema (status, inn, okved, etc.) and error conditions, it is complete. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

The input schema already provides a description of the 'inn' parameter (12-digit INN for individual entrepreneur). The description briefly reiterates the 12-digit requirement but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking IP registration status, OKVED, and EGRIP dates using a 12-digit INN. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that for full EGRUL extract one should use mcp-egrul (though not listed, it provides differentiation).

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 includes explicit 'When to use' (confirm counterparty is active IP before contract/payment) and 'When NOT to use' (full EGRUL extract, offline mode unavailable). It also provides an alternative tool (mcp-egrul) and mentions prerequisites (Pro API key).

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