get_developer_risk_summary

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.