Dict Districts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' plus the dict_ prefix implies a read-only static reference lookup, but it never says the call takes no arguments or returns the entire district dictionary (potentially large), nor how results are ordered or paginated.

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?

A single sentence with the core resource stated first and the usage hint appended in parentheses. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a trivial zero-param dictionary tool this is largely adequate, but with no output schema the agent receives no hint about the response shape (id/name pairs, list structure, or size). A brief note on the return format would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly signals that district ids are the useful output, orienting the agent to what the returned values feed into.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching administrative districts of Russian cities, plus the purpose of the returned ids. It is distinguishable from siblings like dict_areas and dict_metro_city by the word 'districts', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those related area tools.

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 parenthetical explains the downstream use case (district ids narrow a vacancy search within a city), which implies when to reach for it. It does not name alternatives such as dict_areas or suggest_areas, nor state prerequisites like needing a city first, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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