Проверка ИНН, ОГРН и БИК на корректность

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'офлайн-проверка' and 'не обращается к сети', and clarifies it validates checksums/format rather than existence. It does not describe the return shape, but for a boolean-style validator that is a minor 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?

Front-loads what is checked, then the practical benefit, then the no-network caveat and the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 4-param validation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers inputs, offline behavior, and routing. It could mention that the result reports which requisite failed, but the expected valid/invalid outcome is largely implied.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds format constraints beyond the schema (INN 10 and 12 digits, OGRN 13, OGRNIP 15, BIK 9 digits) and notes the account is checked jointly with BIK, which the bare param descriptions do not convey.

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 (проверка/validate) with the exact resources: ИНН, ОГРН/ОГРНИП, БИК, расчётный счёт, including digit-length scoping. An agent can immediately tell this is offline structural validation, distinct from company_check.

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 states the use case ('поймать опечатку до запроса в ФНС или отправки платежа') and names the alternative with its condition: 'чтобы узнать, существует ли компания, используйте company_check'. Nothing 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.