search_delivery_branches

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It only says 'search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether results are returned as a list, how branch_type filtering behaves, what data is included, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. It contains no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The operation is simple and the input schema fully documents all parameters)Skip. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return format or any behavioral caveats (e.g., pagination, empty results, or availability). It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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%: both city_name and branch_type have descriptive text, including examples and enum meanings. The description adds the delivery context but no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('search'), the resource ('Nova Poshta branches and parcel lockers'), and the context ('in the specified city for order delivery'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like search_fireworks or create_order.

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 phrase 'для доставки заказа' gives useful context for when to use the tool, but the description does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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