check_drug_registration

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source (GRLS), the scope of returned information, the non-medical-advice nature, and the Pro tariff requirement. It does not describe nil-result behavior or any side effects, but the content disclosed is substantive for a simple read-only lookup.

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 consists of three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: result scope, parameter guidance, and constraints/disclaimers. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

For a low-complexity lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, query instructions, and key constraints. Minor gaps remain around parameter combination rules and behavior when no matching registration is found, but these are not critical given the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters themselves are already documented. The description adds an inter-parameter rule by instructing the agent to set 'name, mnn или ru_number', implying a choose-one pattern that the schema alone does not express. It does not clarify whether multiple parameters may be combined.

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 the specific resource 'Статус регистрации в ГРЛС' and the concrete result fields (номер РУ, держатель, даты, статус), making it clear this is a registration-status lookup. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_drug or check_recall by the focus on GRLS registration data, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 instruction 'Задайте name, mnn или ru_number' tells the agent what to supply, and 'Тариф Pro' flags an availability constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any alternative tools, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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