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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only lookup and that each served area has a local page, but it does not describe the response format, sorting, or any limitations. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence packs the resource, scope, and output detail; the second gives concrete invocation guidance.

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 zero-input tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what is returned (cities and metros with local pages) and when to use it. It is slightly light on exact return structure, but adequate for this simple lookup.

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 no parameters and the schema is empty with full description coverage. The description correctly focuses on output and use case rather than parameter behavior, which matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 returns the cities and metros served by IG Digital Lab in California, each with a local page, and explicitly frames it as a coverage lookup. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools about company info, services, audit requests, and contact submission.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to answer whether the agency covers a given area. It does not name alternatives or list exclusion conditions, but the intended use is clear enough in context.

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