Find service points

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 mentions the return fields (names, addresses, opening hours, coordinates), providing some transparency, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or any limitations. For a search operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, concise and well-structured. It conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return fields. It explains the input method and the result content. It lacks examples or edge cases, but for a straightforward search tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context by explaining 'by address or postal code' and 'nearest', which clarifies the purpose of city, streetName, streetNumber, and postalCode parameters. This goes slightly beyond the basic schema coverage.

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's purpose: finding nearest PostNord service points by address or postal code. It uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('PostNord service points'), and distinguishes from the coordinate-based sibling tool by specifying the search method.

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 implies this tool is for address/postal code searches but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus the coordinate-based alternative (find_service_points_by_coordinates). It lacks a direct statement about alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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