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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the operation and a price, but not output format, validation semantics, failure modes, or whether a complete address is required. The cost detail is useful but does not compensate for the missing context.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence states the provider, action, target, and price with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits output shape, usage conditions, and alternative routing. The price and function are present, but an agent lacks enough to reliably distinguish and invoke it without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent that the single 'address' string is a Russian address and hints that normalization yields index/region/street/house, but it does not specify input format or whether partial addresses are accepted.

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 uses a specific verb ('нормализация') and resource ('российского адреса'), and enumerates the normalized fields (индекс, регион, улица, дом). This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like pochta_delivery, pochta_track, and pochta_zip, which address different postal operations.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions is provided; the tool is not contrasted with any sibling. 'Нормализация' implies the context, but the agent must infer when to choose this over pochta_zip or pochta_delivery.

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