Справочник локаций

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data scope, the id-bearing entries, the autocomplete-like behavior of query, and that query returns a ready city/district/urban bundle. It does not specify the output shape for the city-only or no-parameter case, though the schema's city parameter partially covers that.

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?

Three dense sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative tool is named, and the query-mode behavior is stated last without redundancy.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary usage modes and the sibling distinction. It leaves a little ambiguity about the exact response shape when called with no parameters or only city, but the input schema's city description covers the no-parameter default, so the gap is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining what the query parameter actually produces (site-like autocomplete returning a ready-made city/district/urban bundle) and positioning city as a browsing action. This lifts it above the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as a location reference for cities, districts, and subdistricts with ids. It also names the core actions (browse available locations, disambiguate) and explicitly contrasts itself with search(), which resolves names, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 an explicit rule: search() is for passing names that it resolves itself, while geo is for viewing what's available or removing ambiguity. This is a direct when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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