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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: slugs are stable, the response nests neighborhoods under cities, and each entity exposes slug + name. It doesn't mention pagination or what happens for unsupported locations, but for a fixed catalog read that is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the slug contract and the call condition. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it names the city fields (slug, name), the nested neighborhood fields, and the stability guarantee. For a zero-param read tool this is complete enough to call and consume 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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by explaining that the returned slug fields are the exact values expected by the `city` and `neighborhood` parameters of muovi_search_professionals, which links output semantics to downstream parameter use.

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 ('List every Argentine city Muovi serves') plus the nesting structure (active neighborhoods under each city). A reader immediately knows this is a location-taxonomy lookup and can distinguish it from siblings like muovi_search_professionals or muovi_list_services.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: 'Call this when you need to resolve a user's location wording to a Muovi city or neighborhood slug.' It also names the downstream tools that consume the slugs, so the agent knows this is a prerequisite step rather than a terminal call.

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