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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-burden. It states the action and the cost but does nota disclose input requirements, invalid-address handling, whether it is a paid external call with rate limits, or what exactly is returned. 'Normalization' hints at the operation but leaves the behavioral contract highly underspecified.

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 a single, focused sentence that communicates the domain, the operation, the relevant fields, and the cost. There is no redundant wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the schema is generic, there is no output schema, and no annotations exist, this description is inadequate for correct invocation. Missing pieces include the exact input format, the normalized output shape, examples, error behavior, and selection criteria among sibling postal tools. The stated cost and field list provide only minimal context.

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?

The input schema has only generic 'args' and 'extra' objects, and description coverage is 0%. The description lists fields such as index, region, street, and house, which helps slightly, but it does not say whether these are input fields, output fields, or both, nor how they map to args. An agent cannot reliably build a correct request payload.

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 says the tool normalizes a Russian address and lists the relevant components: index, region, street, house. That is a specific verb-plus-resource statement, and it is distinguishable from siblings like pochta_track, pochta_tariff, and pochta_offices. It does not fully explain what normalization produces or what input it expects, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as pochta_zip or pochta_offices. The only hint is the word 'normalization,' so when-to-use context is implied but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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