clean_passport

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the paid cost (0.20 RUB/req) which is useful. However, it doesn't state what the tool returns (e.g., valid/invalid), side effects, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is given but could be more complete.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds cost. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core action. Excellent structure and size.

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 simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and cost. Could mention response format (e.g., boolean or status) but overall adequate. Complexity is low, so completeness is high relative to need.

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. Schema already describes 'passport series and number' with an example. Description reinforces the Russian passport context but adds no new format or semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it validates a Russian passport against the MVD invalid passports registry, specifying the country and registry. It uses specific verb 'validate' and resource 'Russian passport', and the sibling tools like 'clean_address', 'clean_name' etc. deal with different entities, so it distinguishes well.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for passport validation but does not mention alternatives like 'find_inn_by_passport' which might be related. Usage is implied but not clarified with exclusions.

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