validate_ogrn

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the core logic (checksum check and length-based type determination), which is valuable. However, it does not state what the tool returns or how it behaves on invalid length or non-digit input.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant content. Every sentence contributes either the purpose, the formats, or the type-detection rule.

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?

Despite outlining the validation logic, the description leaves out the return value and error handling (e.g., what happens with an invalid string). With no annotations and no output schema, this information is necessary for the agent to correctly consume the result. This is a significant gap for a complete tool definition.

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 only defines a string parameter titled 'ogr', giving no semantic meaning. The description compensates fully by explaining the accepted formats (13 or 15 digits) and that the type is inferred from length, which is essential for correct use.

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 a specific verb ('Проверяет контрольную сумму') and the resource (ОГРН/ОГРНИП with digit counts), making its purpose obvious. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling validators like validate_inn and validate_bank_account without needing extra comparison.

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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and resource imply usage for OGRN/OGRNIP validation, but there are no explicit exclusions or mention of other validators, so the agent must infer the correct context.

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