Dict Locales

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does not state that the call is read-only, whether it requires auth, or that the result is a static list. Because the tool is zero-parameter and obviously non-mutating, the risk of misinterpretation is low, but the description adds little behavioral context.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the data returned.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place the return value could be characterized, yet it does not say whether locales come as codes, labels, or an object map. For a trivial reference tool this is a minor gap, but it is the one piece of information missing.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool; the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 verb and resource ('Get the locales supported by hh.ru') and the parenthetical '(vacancy interface)' implicitly separates it from dict_resume_locales. An agent can tell it returns the vacancy-side locale list, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as dict_resume_locales among the many dict_* siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a static reference lookup to be called before filtering vacancy queries.

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