check_developer

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.