Find cities by partial name. Use when: User mentions unfamiliar city or you need coordinates. Returns: City names, coordinates, province, region. Follow: Use city name with advanced_search_availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Partial city name (e.g., 'milan', 'rome') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is known. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return fields ('City names, coordinates, province, region') and the partial-match behavior, which is important because there is no output schema. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-backed tools.
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 compact and well-organized into three labeled sections: action, usage trigger, returns, and follow-up. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides essential details efficiently.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one parameter), strong annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and lack of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to proceed afterward. There are no significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'term' is already well-described as a 'Partial city name.' The description's phrase 'by partial name' reinforces this but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. With a single, clearly documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Find cities by partial name.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (which focus on availability searches) by being a location lookup tool. The return fields are also listed, further clarifying its purpose.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when: User mentions unfamiliar city or you need coordinates.' It also directs the agent on next steps: 'Follow: Use city name with advanced_search_availability.' This clearly informs when to use this tool and how to apply its output, even if it doesn't formally mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
simple_search_availability appears to duplicate advanced_search_availability with no clear distinction in purpose or parameters. The other tools are distinct, but this overlap creates ambiguity in tool selection.
All names use snake_case, but conventions vary: search_available_clinics_map and search_suggest_city start with 'search', while advanced_search_availability, simple_search_availability, and smart_suggest_service use adjective prefixes. search_suggest_city is an awkward combination of two verbs. Still readable overall.
Five tools is well-scoped for a booking availability server, covering the essential search paths (city, service, clinic, slots) without unnecessary bloat.
The core discovery workflow (city -> service -> clinic -> availability) is covered, and advanced_search_availability returns booking_url for handoff. Minor gaps include no dedicated doctor search tool and the redundancy of simple_search_availability, but the surface is functional.
