delivery_restrictions__get_allowed_delivery_restrictions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact response composition (is_allowed + allowed_items with durations + rejected_items with rejection codes) and a server-side throttle of 20 requests/60s that is explicitly distinguished from the iikoCloud limit, with a caching recommendation. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then response shape, then ID sourcing plus throttling/caching guidance. Each sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded. The structure is clean and scannable despite the density of information.

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?

Given a complex nested request schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, summarized response shape, ID sourcing, and rate-limit/caching behavior. Since there is no output schema, the response summary is especially valuable. Minor gaps remain (precise response structure, error behavior, date format), but the tool is adequately callable with this description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It compensates partially by mapping three key ID fields (organizationId, organizationIds, streetId) to their source tools and stating the core selection criteria (address/sum/date). However, it leaves other fields unaddressed — orderItems structure, the distinction between deliverySum and discountSum, deliveryDate format, and the required isCourierDelivery flag — which is a meaningful gap for a complex nested request.

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 opens with "Подходящие терминальные группы под адрес/сумму/дату доставки" — a specific purpose (identifying suitable terminal groups for a delivery address/sum/date) with a clear verb+resource. It further clarifies by naming the output fields (is_allowed, allowed_items, rejected_items). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the close sibling delivery_restrictions__get_delivery_restrictions, but the scope is clear enough to prevent confusion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools like delivery_restrictions__get_delivery_restrictions or terminal_groups__check_terminal_groups_availability. However, the description gives practical operational guidance: where to source organizationId/organizationIds/streetId from sibling lookup tools and a directive to cache results due to the rate limit. This is useful but implicit rather than explicit selection guidance.

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