get_offices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, any filtering logic, or potential side effects. For a search tool, this is a significant gap; the agent cannot anticipate return behavior or data scope.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. The key search criteria are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward lookup tool.

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?

Despite having 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description offers no usage context. It does not explain how the parameters interact (e.g., whether they are mutually exclusive filters), what the result will be, or the significance of the 'top' parameter. An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand even basic invocation, making this incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the parameter semantics are documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level hint about searching by index or settlement, which aligns with existing parameter descriptions but does not introduce new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient parameter details.

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's purpose: searching post offices by postal code or settlement. It uses a specific verb (Поиск) and resource (почтовых отделений), and the mention of two distinct search criteria distinguishes it from siblings like zip_lookup and track, which serve different functions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context, which is insufficient given the presence of similar lookup tools.

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