Check Participant by INN

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions endpoints but omits behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid INNs, or response structure details beyond 'registration status and details'.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. The endpoint string is a bonus and does not add bloat. Every sentence serves a clear function without 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 simple single-parameter tool, the description provides basic purpose and endpoint. However, without an output schema, the phrase 'registration status and details' is vague. Missing context about return format, pagination (if any), or input constraints like INN format could hinder agent usage in ambiguous scenarios.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'inns' array. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that INNs are tax IDs and that each is checked individually, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Check if a company is a registered participant' and the resource 'Chestnyi Znak by their INN'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on participant status, while siblings handle balances, documents, etc.

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 implies the tool is used for checking registration status by INN, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Context from sibling tools suggests distinct use cases, but the description alone lacks directive for the agent.

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