Список локаций

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it includes inactive locations, and it spells out the attributes returned. The note about typical store size and default pagination is also useful behavioral information. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and fields, followed by the set_inventory wiring and pagination advice. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (including inactive items), which fields are present, how it relates to set_inventory, and that the default page size usually suffices. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already covers the 'first' parameter fully (integer, 1..250, default 20), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that the default page size is enough for most stores, providing practical guidance on parameter usage beyond the schema's formal constraints.

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 'Возвращает' with a clear resource 'локации магазина', and enumerates the returned fields (id, название, адрес, активность, выполняет ли онлайн-заказы). It also distinguishes itself by explaining that its id is needed by set_inventory, which clearly separates it from other list tools like list_products or list_orders.

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 gives an explicit use case: use this tool to obtain the location id for set_inventory. It also notes that most stores have only one or two locations, so the default page size is sufficient. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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