check_developer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the data comes from EISJS and includes a 'Тариф Pro' (Pro tariff) note, suggesting access restrictions. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though the context implies a safe query.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key capabilities without unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential context: data source, contents, and tariff. Minor omissions like pagination or update frequency do not significantly detract from completeness.

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% for the single parameter (ident: ИНН или ОГРН застройщика). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate for a straightforward parameter.

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 retrieves a developer card from EISJS by INN/OGRN, listing specific content (requisites, register, objects, problematic count, financial status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_construction_permit or get_developer_risk_summary, which focus on specific aspects.

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 implies the tool is for comprehensive developer profiles, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_developer_risk_summary. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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