list_pickup_points

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. It only states that query filters by name/address. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether omitting query returns all pickup points, what happens when no results match, or any auth requirements. These gaps are significant for an agent with no annotation fallback.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the most important information (what the tool is) and then adds parameter semantics. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. However, the description is missing explicit usage context and behavioral guarantees (e.g., read-only, returns all when query is null). An agent has to infer too much about when and how to call it correctly.

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 schema has no description for the 'query' property (0% coverage), so the description's note that it filters by name/address adds genuine semantic value. It is brief but sufficient to convey that query is a free-text search filter. It could mention matching behavior (e.g., substring or case-insensitivity), but this is a minor omission for an optional parameter.

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 identifies the resource ('Пункты выдачи заказов (ПВЗ)') and, combined with the tool name 'list_pickup_points', makes it clear the tool lists order pickup points. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_stores' by naming pickup points explicitly. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not state the scope (e.g., returns all pickup points or only those for the current order).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_stores or search_products. No context is given about prerequisites like an active cart/order, whether this is for checkout selection, or any conditions that would make a different sibling more appropriate.

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