screen_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions screening against public lists and the Pro tariff, but it does not disclose what the operation returns, whether it is read-only, what happens on matches/no matches, or any rate limits or auth prerequisites beyond the tariff hint. This is too thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one short sentence with no redundant words; the core purpose is front-loaded and 'Tariff Pro' adds a compact plan-related constraint. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists, so the description need not restate return values. Still, with no annotations and no explicit sibling differentiation, the agent must infer behavioral and selection details. The description is adequate for a basic screening tool but leaves some completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema already describes name as required, and ИНН/ОГРН as optional with digit-length validation. The description only restates the optionality of these identifiers and does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states that the tool performs screening of an organization by name and optionally ИНН/ОГРН against public lists. It uses a specific noun and scope ('организации'), which semantically separates it from person-oriented siblings such as screen_person. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to screen an organization by name and optionally ИНН/ОГРН. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer screen_person, screen_inn, or list_watchlists. The 'Tariff Pro' note gives a plan constraint but not usage-vs-alternative direction.

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