check_recall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is reference information, not medical advice, and notes the Pro tariff requirement. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data source limitations, or access/auth implications beyond tariff.

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?

Extremely compact: every fragment earns its place. The core information is front-loaded, followed by a useful disclaimer and tariff note. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 with fully described optional parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It conveys the data source, key fields, informational nature, and tariff. The main missing piece is explicit sibling differentiation, which belongs to usage guidance.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond restating 'name' and 'series' as relevant fields; it does not introduce new parameter constraints, formats, or edge-case semantics.

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 identifies the resource: Roszdravnadzor letters about drug series, and lists the relevant fields (name, series, letter type, number, date). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like check_drug_registration, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to retrieve Roszdravnadzor letters about series. The disclaimer 'Справка, не медицинский совет' adds context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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