cities_by_coordinates_largest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions ordering by population but omits key details like how many cities are returned, what defines 'near' (radius), and whether there are limits. The agent lacks critical information about the tool's behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could be expanded slightly to include missing behavioral details without harming brevity.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description should hint at return structure and behavior. It only says 'cities' and 'ordered by population', but lacks details on count, radius, and fields returned. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about ordering by population, which is not in the schema, but does not clarify the format of coordinates or the role of preferredLanguages beyond what the schema provides.

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 finds largest cities near coordinates, ordered by population. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'closest' by emphasizing 'largest'. However, it doesn't specify if it returns a list or just one city, and could be more precise about output.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when you want the most populous cities near a location, as opposed to the closest city. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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