Справочник локаций

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully reveals the non-obvious API constraint about district filtering, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what the response shape is, or whether results are static/cacheable. Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: the resource, the reason the tool is needed, and the routing rule versus search(). The resource is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter directory with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and the key API constraint. What is missing is only a brief note on the return structure and its read-only nature, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single city parameter is documented there (name or id, with a default). The description mentions districts/microdistricts but adds no parameter-specific semantics, so it neither compensates nor detracts. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete resource — city districts and their microdistricts with ids — which immediately distinguishes the tool from search(). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling cities, another directory-style location tool, so the agent must infer the split.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: view what is available, or disambiguate names. It also states the reason the tool exists (the API cannot filter by district, only by enumerating microdistricts) and clarifies that search() resolves names on its own, so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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