list_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says the tool returns a list of pickup points in a city. It does not mention the prepaid filtering behavior (left to the schema), response contents, pagination/limits, or failure behavior, so it is minimally transparent rather than misleading.

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 sentence with no filler; the object (pickup points) and scope (city) are front-loaded. This is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 definition is adequate for a simple list call when combined with the schema, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should more clearly state the full return behavior and the dependency on list_cities. It leaves room for ambiguity about whether all points or only some are returned.

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%: city_code is described as the Boxberry city code from list_cities, and prepaid has enum/default plus a clear Russian explanation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it appropriately rests at the baseline 3 for full 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 names a specific resource (Boxberry pickup points) and a clear scope (specified city), with an implicit list verb. This is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_cities (cities) and calc_delivery/track (delivery calculations/tracking).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named in the description. The schema's note that city_code comes from list_cities provides a workflow hint, and the city-based scope implies usage for listing pickup points, but the selection guidance is mostly left to inference.

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