employees__get_active_courier_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: MCP-server throttling limits (not iikoCloud limits), a caching recommendation, and the note that the rate limit applies to the MCP server. This gives the agent actionable information about operational constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource in the first phrase, then provides essential usage and throttling guidance in two short sentences. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no enums, no nested objects) and read-only annotations, the description covers the key operational needs: what the tool returns, where to get the ID, and how to respect rate limits. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the shape of the returned locations could be useful, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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 provides only a nested description of `organizationIds` as a list of organizations, and top-level schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly telling the agent where to source `organizationIds` from (`organizations__get_organizations`), which is highly relevant for correct invocation. It does not fully detail all parameter semantics, but for the single parameter this guidance is sufficient.

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 clearly: 'Локации активных курьеров' (locations of active couriers), which is a specific deliverable and distinct from the sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the tool name plus the noun phrase make the operation unambiguous. The 'active couriers' qualifier helps differentiate it from history or terminal-scoped variants.

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 concrete usage guidance: where to obtain `organizationIds` (via `organizations__get_organizations`) and that results should be cached due to MCP-server throttling of 10 requests per 60 seconds. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over `employees__get_active_courier_locations_by_terminal`, but it provides clear practical context for calling the tool safely.

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