detect_delivery_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: that coordinates are private, implying the response omits raw coordinates. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens when no favorite exists, or what the result contains, which leaves most behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment with no wasted words, and the constraint comes first. However, the terseness comes at the cost of substance: the semicolon splits two unrelated ideas and the phrasing is clipped rather than front-loaded with purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the lookup behavior, the fallback when no favorite is available, and the shape of the result. Instead it covers only a privacy note and an input restriction, leaving the agent without enough to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that 'address_index' indexes into saved favorites, which the bare integer schema does not convey, but the required 'country' parameter is never explained and the null/default behavior of address_index is undefined.

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 never states what the tool actually does — no verb such as 'detect' or 'resolve', and no mention of returning a delivery location. It only states a constraint about which favorite may be used, so an agent must infer the purpose from the tool name alone. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'delivery_location' or 'suggest_address'.

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?

It gives one real usage rule: use a single saved favorite, or one identified by explicit index. That partially tells the agent what input is acceptable, but there is no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no reference to the sibling address/delivery tools that would be the obvious substitutes.

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