newdb_check_bankrot

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

There are no annotations to provide behavioral context. The description simply says 'check', implying read-only operation, but does not disclose what results are returned, whether it validates INN format, or any side effects. Since the description carries the full burden, this is under-specified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and data source in under 20 words, making it easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a list of records, or a count). For a check tool, this missing information could lead to incorrect assumptions about the result format, making the description incomplete.

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?

The only parameter 'inn' is fully described in the JSON schema (individual: 12 digits, company: 10 digits), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance it.

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 the action (check) and the resource (bankruptcy records for individuals/companies), and specifies the data source (Fedresurs/EFRSB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that check other types of records.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over its siblings (e.g., newdb_check_fssp, newdb_check_egrul). The description only states what it does without indicating context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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