screen_foreign_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially does so by revealing exact/fuzzy matching and 'neutral output', which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what 'neutral output' means, whether results are limited to matches, or any side effects; the read-only nature is only implied by 'Проверка'.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words: it leads with the resource, states the match behavior, and closes with the output stance. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and its parameters are already well documented, so return-value detail is not required. But the description still lacks guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling screening tools, and it leaves the 'neutral output' phrase ambiguous. An agent could invoke it correctly, but selection among the siblings would benefit from more context.

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%, so the schema already documents fio and inn with their types, requirements, and defaults. The description mentions 'ФИО/ИНН' but adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource: it checks the Russian Ministry of Justice foreign agents register. It also adds matching semantics (exact/fuzzy ФИО/ИНН), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as screen_person or screen_inn, so it stops shy of full sibling 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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when a foreign agent registry check is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of how it relates to screen_person, screen_entity, screen_inn, or list_watchlists. The absence of exclusions makes it usable, but the guidance is not stated.

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