newdb_complex_check_person

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'aggregates', implying multiple backend calls and a combined result, which is useful. However, it does not communicate whether the operation is read-only, potentially slow, likely to partially fail, or whether specific permissions are required. For a tool that queries government databases, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any filler. Every word contributes to the user's understanding, making it an excellent example of concise and structured communication.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is under-specified. It does not cover what the user can expect in the response (e.g., raw data, summarized findings, pagination), how to interpret results from multiple sources, or whether failures are isolated. For a 'comprehensive' check, the description should set expectations about the returned data or reference an output schema, but it does not.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage (e.g., 'Date of birth YYYY-MM-DD (optional)'). The description adds the phrase 'by passport', which clarifies that 'seria' and 'number' refer to a Russian passport, but does not explain the role of optional fields like 'dob' or 'secondname' in the comprehensive search. The description neither enhances nor hinders understanding beyond the schema, matching 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 'Comprehensive background check for Russian citizen by passport' with a specific verb ('check'), a defined resource ('Russian citizen'), and a method ('by passport'). It further differentiates itself from siblings by listing aggregated sources ('FNS INN, MVD passport, FSSP debts, bankruptcy, courts, pledge'), making it distinct from single-purpose tools like newdb_check_fssp or newdb_check_bankrot.

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 rather than explicitly stated. The word 'comprehensive' and the list of aggregated sources suggest this should be used when a multi-faceted check on a person is needed, while sibling tools handle individual checks. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use this instead of' guidance, and no mention of when not to use it (e.g., for companies, which is covered by newdb_complex_check_company).

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