addresses__get_streets_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: an MCP-specific rate limit (1 request per 60s), a caching recommendation for dialog use, and a note that correlation_id in the response is optional. This is exactly the extra context that helps an agent plan calls.

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 Russian sentences, each earning its place: purpose, ID provenance, and operational constraints (throttling/caching). Front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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?

Combined with the schema and annotations, the description covers safety (read-only) and key operational constraints (rate limit, caching). But it does not describe the return shape (no output schema exists) or clarify whether at least one of ids/classifierIds should be supplied when both are nullable. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with a nested request object.

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 description mentions ids, classifierIds, and points to how to source organizationId, partially mapping to the schema's inner fields. However, schema description coverage is 0% at the top-level 'request' parameterwaters, and the description does not explain how to structure the wrapper request (e.g., that organizationId is required while ids and classifierIds are both nullable alternatives). It partially compensates but leaves the relationship between parameters ambiguous.

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 states the resource ('streets') and the lookup keys ('ids or classifierIds'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like addresses__get_streets_by_city. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name supplies 'get'. The optional correlation_id note adds minor scope clarification.

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 comparison with alternatives such as addresses__get_streets_by_city or guidance on when to prefer this tool. The only usage advice is a provenance chain for organizationId (organizations__get_organizations) and a throttling/caching tip, which are operational but not decision-oriented.

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