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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: no authorization is required, St. Petersburg uses Dostavista slots with the nearest first, and other cities use CDEK timeframes and pickup points. It still omits error behavior, rate limits, or explicit read-only confirmation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then provider branching. Every sentence adds useful information 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?

For a four-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, city-dependent provider behavior, and authentication requirements well. It is still missing return-shape guidance and explicit routing versus sibling tools such as quote_cart.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful meaning about how city changes provider behavior, but does not add semantics for q, limit, or cdek_code beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific resource and result: delivery times and methods, with city-dependent provider behavior. It is clearly distinct from siblings like quote_cart or get_order_status, but does not explicitly name an alternative or reinforce the distinction.

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 when the tool applies through its city-based behavior, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus quote_cart, create_checkout, or other siblings. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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