find_postal_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool returns address, schedule, and status, and accepts postal code or coordinates as input. However, it does not discuss error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no match is found, which are gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, input methods, and output. Every phrase adds value and there is no superfluous information.

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 the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality and return information. It does not address edge cases like multiple results or coordinate precision, but these are not critical for basic usage. The description is largely sufficient for the tool's scope.

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 50% (only the 'query' parameter has a description in the schema). The description adds the interpretation that 'query' can be a postal code or coordinates, which provides context beyond the schema. However, the 'count' parameter is not mentioned in the description; the schema provides its default, min, and max, so the description does not fully compensate for the low 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 verb 'Find', the resource 'post office', and the methods 'by postal code' or 'nearest by coordinates'. It also explicitly lists the return fields (address, schedule, status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'geolocate_address' or 'find_delivery_city'.

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 two usage scenarios (by postal code or by coordinates) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other, nor does it mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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