newdb_check_fssp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the check action and does not disclose return format, operational side effects (though likely read-only), rate limits, or any prerequisites. Beyond the core purpose, no behavioral details are given.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the domain but omits details like return format, error scenarios, or regional scope limitations. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not fully round out the tool's usage 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%, with each of the five parameters documented (e.g., DOB format, Russian names, regioncode default, optional patronymic). The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource 'FSSP registry' and the content ('open enforcement proceedings, debts, and fines'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bankruptcy or passport checks.

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 the tool is used to check FSSP enforcement proceedings for a person, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with sibling check tools. It lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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