Экспресс: позиция курьера

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value by detailing the response structure (lat, lon, timestamp, accuracy, speed, direction, route_points) and error codes (404, 409), giving the agent a clear expectation of behavior beyond the 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only essential information (response shape and error codes). No redundant words 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 simple read-only operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the response fields, error conditions, and usage context. All necessary information is provided without needing to consult other tools or documentation.

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% for the only parameter (claim_id), and the schema already explains its origin and length. The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that the tool returns the current geolocation of the courier for an active claim, with specific response fields (position, route_points, sharing_link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like express_get_claim (claim details) and express_tracking_links (tracking links). The verb is implied but unambiguous from the resource naming.

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 specifies that the tool applies to 'active claim' and mentions a 409 error when the claim is not in active status, giving clear context on when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so it stops 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.