check_debtor_wanted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the request contains personal data and imposes a legal-consent constraint, and it implies a read-only check against an external FSSP database. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it address response behavior, availability, 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the legal caveat and the sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, legal constraints, and the key alternative. It lacks only an explicit no-side-effects/read-only statement and minor operational details (e.g., external service behavior), but the legal notice and sibling differentiation make the definition largely complete.

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%: both fio and birth_date already have clear descriptions with formats and examples. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Проверить розыск должника в банке ФССП' and names the exact source fssp.gov.ru/iss/wanted. It then distinguishes itself from check_individual_debts, making the purpose unmistakable even without seeing the sibling schemas.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with check_individual_debts: this tool checks the fact of being placed on the wanted list under enforcement proceedings, not the list of open proceedings. It also gives a conditional rule—use only for lawful compliance/due-diligence with 152-FZ consent—giving the agent clear selection and legal guards.

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