calculate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states this is a calculation (non-destructive read of pricing), but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, whether it commits to anything, how results are returned, or whether it hits a live API with rate limits. For a calculation tool that presumably performs a quote lookup, the behavioral details are thin.

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 concise sentence in Russian that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It's appropriately front-loaded and waste-free. Every word earns its place, though it could arguably add a bit more usage context without bloating.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet it's a non-trivial 7-parameter tool with 3 required params. The description explains the purpose adequately but doesn't describe what the output/return value looks like (cost amount, currency, delivery days). For a quote tool that returns meaningful pricing data, the lack of return-format guidance is a notable gap. However, given good schema coverage of inputs, the description is minimally adequate.

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%, with all 7 parameters described in the input schema (city IDs from get_cities, dimensions in meters, weight in kg, quantity default of 1). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already gives. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate further. However, it does implicitly convey that all inputs relate to shipment dimensions for pricing.

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 tool calculates delivery cost and timeframes for Delovye Linii ('Расчёт стоимости и сроков доставки Деловыми Линиями' - calculation of cost and delivery terms for Business Lines). It names the specific resource (cost/timeline calculation) and the transport company, which distinguishes its purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, and the title is null, so the description is the only identifier.

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 when to use this tool (to get delivery cost and timeframe quotes), but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling tool to use instead. Given siblings include create_order, track, get_terminals, etc., the usage context is somewhat implied but not explicitly differentiated. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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