check_construction_permit

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.