validate_inn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clarifies that the tool only validates the checksum and that extra characters like spaces and hyphens are ignored. It does not describe return/error behavior, but for a pure validation function the exposed behavior is otherwise clear and useful.

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 two short sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second gives the parameter detail. There is no filler, no repetition of the schema, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple single-required-parameter validator, so the description covers the key input semantics and the checksum-only scope. The only notable omission is explicit return-shape information, which is minor given the tool's clear validation intent. Overall, an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 offers only a required string named 'inn' with no per-parameter description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by defining what an INN is, giving the 10/12-digit distinction, and stating that spaces and hyphens are tolerated. This adds meaning directly relevant to constructing a correct argument.

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 states the action precisely: "Проверяет контрольную сумму ИНН" (checks the INN checksum), and even distinguishes between 10-digit legal entities and 12-digit individuals/entrepreneurs. This makes its resource and operation unambiguous and clearly separates it from siblings like validate_ogrn and validate_bank_account.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when an INN string needs checksum validation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when not to use this one, so an agent must infer routing from the sibling list rather than receiving direct guidance.

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