clean_name

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

The description discloses the paid cost (0.20 RUB/req) and the basic outputs, but does not detail error handling, normalization behavior, or whether the input is case-sensitive. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and provides a moderate level of transparency.

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 with only two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 description lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., whether it returns a structured object or plain text). Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify this. It does mention splitting and detection, but not the output structure.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples and specifies 'any format' for input, which adds some value beyond the schema description.

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 verb (parse/standardize), the resource (Russian full name FIO), and the specific outputs (split into surname/name/patronymic, detect gender). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like suggest_fio or clean_person.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as clean_person or suggest_fio. It mentions the cost, which is contextual, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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