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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden, but it only discloses that the result is either an EISZS key or an honest refusal. It does not clarify side effects, permissions, error behavior beyond 'refusal', or whether the operation is read-only. The phrase 'Описание методов закрыто' actively signals that no further behavioral detail is available.

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 short, but the second sentence 'Описание методов закрыто' is meta-commentary that does not help the agent select or invoke the tool. The first sentence is cryptic rather than clearly front-loaded with actionable information.

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?

Even though the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks explicit purpose, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools. The 'key or refusal' phrasing gives some context, but overall the definition is incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 already explains object_id as 'Идентификатор объекта в ЕИСЖС'. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics, but because the schema covers the single parameter fully, a 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 identifies the resource (construction permit) and hints at a result ('client's EISZS key or honest refusal'), but it never states an explicit verb like 'check', 'verify', or 'retrieve'. The ambiguity of 'ключ ЕИСЖС клиента' (input key vs. output key) makes the purpose only partially clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over its siblings such as check_developer or check_escrow. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the result is either an EISZhS key or an honest refusal. It does not disclose read-only status, error behavior, authentication needs, or what 'honest refusal' means concretely; the second sentence explicitly declines to provide method details.

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 short and puts 'Карточка застройщика' first, but the second half is a meta-warning rather than actionable tool information. It is compact but not optimally structured for an agent.

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?

Although the input schema is complete and an output schema exists, the description does not sufficiently explain what the tool accomplishes or when to select it among five siblings. A simple one-parameter lookup still needs enough semantic context to route correctly; this description leaves too much to inference.

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%: the schema already documents 'ident' as 'ИНН или ОГРН застройщика (юрлица).' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but under the baseline for full schema coverage a 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 names a resource ('Карточка застройщика') and hints at an outcome ('ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb and never clearly states that checking an INN/OGRN returns a developer card; the EISZhS acronym is unexplained. It also does not distinguish the tool from get_developer_risk_summary, which also concerns a developer.

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 guidance on when to use check_developer rather than a sibling tool such as get_developer_risk_summary. The closing phrase 'Описание методов закрыто — запрос не выдумываем' warns against inventing calls but does not state usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether this is read-only, what side effects exist, what happens on failure, or what 'honest refusal' means operationally. The phrase 'Описание методов закрыто' explicitly avoids describing behavior.

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 very short but not effectively structured; the second sentence is meta-commentary that wastes the reader's attention. The content is under-specified rather than deliberately concise, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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?

Even though complexity is low and an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the tool's core purpose or expected behavior. An agent would struggle to decide whether to invoke this tool because the description is essentially a cryptic tagline.

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 fully documents the single parameter (object_id as an identifier in EISHS), so baseline is 3. The description adds only a slight hint that the key belongs to a client, but this does not materially improve parameter understanding.

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 only mentions 'Эскроу' (escrow) and a cryptic 'key or honest refusal' phrase, with no clear verb or action. It mostly restates the tool name and adds the unhelpful meta-statement 'Описание методов закрыто' instead of explaining what the tool does.

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 guidance about when to use check_escrow versus any of the sibling tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a possible refusal outcome ('честный отказ'), but does not disclose authentication needs, failure conditions, side effects, or what 'ключ ЕИСЖС клиента' means in practice. The final sentence is a meta-statement, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 text is short, but brevity is not the same as conciseness: 'Описание методов закрыто' is filler that does not help an agent, and the main phrase is opaque. The structure does not front-load a clear, actionable purpose.

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?

Even though the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what the risk summary contains, how to interpret the 'key or honest refusal' language, or when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools. It is not complete enough for reliable selection and 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, describing 'inn' as 'ИНН застройщика'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents it adequately, 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 'Сводка риска' essentially restates the tool name without adding a clear verb or outcome. The phrase 'ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ' is cryptic and does not specify what action the tool performs or what the result represents. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings like check_developer or check_escrow.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling tool. 'Описание методов закрыто' explicitly says methods are closed and provides no selection criteria, context, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a result ('ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ' — key or honest refusal) but never explains what an 'honest refusal' is, what failure cases look like, or whether the operation is read-only. The final sentence says method descriptions are closed, further reducing transparency.

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 short, but that is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. 'Описание методов закрыто' is a non-informative meta-statement that does not earn its place, and the main clause is too cryptic to serve as a useful front-loaded summary.

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?

Even though the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's contract. It lacks a clear behavior statement, usage context, and any meaningful explanation of the 'honest refusal' outcome, while explicitly stating that method descriptions are closed.

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 object_id parameter already has a clear Russian description in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 is a noun phrase ('Проектная декларация: ...') that largely restates the tool name and adds a cryptic phrase ('ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ') without a clear verb or outcome. It does not clarify what the tool actually does beyond what the name already implies, and 'Описание методов закрыто' actively withholds explanation.

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 sibling tools like check_developer, check_escrow, or check_construction_permit. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or alternatives; the statement 'Описание методов закрыто' explicitly indicates that no usage guidance will be provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at an EISZHS client key and an 'honest refusal' outcome, but does not explain when a refusal is returned, whether the operation is read-only, how pagination errors behave, or where the data comes from. 'Описание методов закрыто' further withholds behavior.

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 text is short but under-specified: the first sentence is vague and the second sentence ('Описание методов закрыто') is meta-commentary that does not help an agent. It is not well front-loaded beyond the generic 'catalog of objects' label.

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?

Despite the helpful input schema and an output schema being present, the description leaves core context missing: how the EISZHS key is provided, when an honest refusal occurs, how this tool relates to sibling tools, and what the catalog actually contains. The explicit statement that method descriptions are closed makes the definition incomplete for selection and 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 each of the six filter parameters already carries a meaningful schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics and even introduces a client EISZHS key concept that is absent from the schema, so the 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 says 'Каталог объектов' ('catalog of objects'), which is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name rather than an explicit operation like 'list new buildings'. The addition 'ключ ЕИСЖС клиента или честный отказ' is cryptic and does not clarify the resource or its exact scope, and no distinction is made from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of check_developer, get_project_declaration, check_escrow, or others. The phrase 'Описание методов закрыто' actively disclaims instructions rather than providing prerequisites or alternatives.

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