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 says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it supports pagination, sorting, filtering beyond parameters, or any side effects. The phrase 'com canal tocável' hints at a filter but doesn't explain the behavior or result format.

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 extremely brief, one short phrase, which is technically concise but under-specifies the tool. It lacks any structural organization or front-loaded key information. The brevity is not effective because it omits essential details, making it more of an under-specification than genuine conciseness.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the return type and how parameters affect results. It does neither. The description is incomplete to the point of being unusable for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('country' and 'subdivision'), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no extra context about parameter usage, dependencies, or format. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score 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 'Cidades com canal tocável' translates to 'Cities with a playable channel', which is a noun phrase that doesn't explicitly state the action of listing or returning cities. It is vague and lacks a clear verb, making it ambiguous whether the tool lists cities or something else. It does hint at a resource (cities) but not the operation, so it only partially distinguishes from sibling list tools.

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 like list_countries or list_subdivisions. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description gives zero information about selection criteria.

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