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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is 'live' and 'FREE', and enumerates the returned data categories. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects (though it's a read operation). It adds some behavioral context but is not comprehensive for a zero-annotation tool.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and payload, the second and third efficiently detail input flexibility. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers the single parameter thoroughly and provides enough context about the data scope. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens if the city doesn't exist), but these are non-critical for a simple read tool with schema-backed output.

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 offers only a generic string type with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that 'city' accepts keys (cyber, default, etc.) or names (Neo Tokyo, etc.), and even supports agent-built outposts. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't exhaustively list all valid values.

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 states a clear, specific verb ('Get') and a defined resource ('City Pulse') with a concrete list of components (jobs, barter offers, residents, recent trade). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact data payload, making it unambiguous which tool to call for a city's live pulse. The mention of key/name/outpost variants further clarifies scope.

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 useful context about how to specify the city (key, name, outpost) but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_city_stats or get_settlement_pulse. It implies usage for live pulse data, but offers no exclusions or comparisons, leaving some inference to the agent.

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