cdek_coordinates

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

The description lacks details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what the response contains. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to add transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and a clear parameter list. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 coordinate lookup with two numeric parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It defines inputs and purpose. However, it doesn't mention coordinate range limits or that it returns address details, which could be inferred from the output schema but is not stated. With many sibling tools, a bit more context (e.g., 'Returns address components') would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description lists both parameters with example values (latitude 55.7558, longitude 37.6173). This adds practical meaning, helping the agent understand the expected format. The description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool retrieves a location by coordinates using GET /v2/location/coordinates. It specifies the resource ('локация по координатам') and the action ('получение'), making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools include different lookups (cdek_cities, cdek_delivery_points), so this tool is distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the purpose is clear, the description does not explicitly state when it is appropriate (e.g., 'Use when you have latitude/longitude') or mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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