Проверка ИНН, ОГРН и БИК на корректность

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

The 'Не обращается к сети' statement positively reinforces the openWorldHint=false annotation and tells the agent this is a purely offline syntactic check, which is meaningful context. It does not cover what the result looks like when a checksum fails, so it falls just short of fully rich disclosure.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: what is validated, why it matters, and the boundary/alternative. The scope is front-loaded before the routing hint.

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?

For a read-only, no-network validation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, offline behavior, and the sibling alternative. It stops short of describing the validation outcome/message format, which is the only remaining gap an agent might want.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the terse schema labels: digit-count constraints (10/12, 13, 15, 9, 20) and the cross-field rule that the account is validated together with БИК. That extra semantics lifts it above 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?

States a specific verb (офлайн-проверка контрольных сумм) and enumerates exactly which resources are validated (ИНН, ОГРН, ОГРНИП, БИК, расчётный счёт) with their digit lengths. It also distinguishes itself from company_check, which the agent would otherwise conflate with this tool.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('поймать опечатку в реквизитах до запроса в ФНС или отправки платежа') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('чтобы узнать, существует ли компания, используйте company_check'). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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