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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the response contains (e.g., dealer names, addresses, contact info), or any limitations beyond the number of cities. The lack of output schema makes this omission significantly detrimental.

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 exactly two short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and critical object ('Найти дилера'), followed by a useful scope detail ('175 городов России'). Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context about expected results and parameter handling. It does not explain what data is returned (e.g., dealer list, map link) or whether both parameters are optional and how they combine. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly, more behavioral info is needed.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (city and region), covering 100% of the semantics. The tool description adds only that the search is 'in the city', but does not clarify the relationship or precedence between city and region. Per the calibration, baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds minimal value.

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 the specific verb 'Найти' (find) with a clear resource ('дилера Laguna Pools') and geographic scope ('в городе', '175 городов России'). It unambiguously differentiates this tool from all sibling tools, none of which relate to finding dealers.

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 for finding dealers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool has similar functionality, the usage is self-evident but not explicitly guided, fitting the 'implied usage' category.

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