cdek_suggest_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only GET request returning suggestions, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or result limits. This is adequate for a simple suggestion tool but could be improved.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args' section clearly describes parameters. Minor redundancy due to dual-language phrasing but overall efficient.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter semantics. No critical gaps remain for a suggestion tool.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no descriptions in the input schema. The description adds value by explaining both parameters: name is a city name or prefix, and country_code is an ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 code with an example. This is more helpful than the schema alone.

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 suggests cities by name ('Подбор локации по названию города' / 'возвращает подсказки по подбору населенного пункта'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cdek_cities (full list) and cdek_delivery_points (specific locations) by focusing on autocomplete suggestions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cdek_cities for full city lists. Guidelines are implied but not articulated, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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