newdb_check_fns_block

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose without mentioning that this is a read-only query, what data source is used, or any responses or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no structural metadata.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple nature of the tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it does not specify what the check returns, any edge cases, or whether it requires live access. Completeness is adequate but not robust.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (INN and BIK) with 100% coverage, so the description need not add more. However, it adds no additional context about how these parameters influence the check, keeping it 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks bank account suspension decisions by Russian Federal Tax Service (FNS BIKP), distinguishing it from sibling check tools like newdb_check_bankrot or newdb_check_egrul. The verb 'check' and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 purpose implies usage for FNS block checks, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. It neither names alternative tools nor states exclusions, leaving selection to inference.

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