screen_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that results are neutral, require manual verification, and that the operation runs against public lists, which conveys the non-authoritative nature of the output. It also notes the Pro tariff requirement, adding access context.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: what the tool does, what the output behavior is, and what tariff is required. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, source lists, output neutrality, manual verification need, and access tier. Return-value details are handled by 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents full_name and birth_date well. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond restating that screening is by full name with optional birth date, which keeps this at the baseline.

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?

Purpose is explicit: screening a natural person ('физлица') by full name, optionally birth date, against public lists. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like screen_entity, screen_inn, and screen_foreign_agent, since it is person-centric and name-based.

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 description implies when to use it—when an individual needs screening by full name against public lists—and mentions optional birth date for disambiguation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as screen_inn or list_watchlists.

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