get_university_cities

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 the filtering behavior (case-insensitive substring), the optional limit, and the return envelope format ({ok, data, error, disclaimer}). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or potential edge cases, but for a simple read-only list tool, the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase contributes value. It is concise with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional parameters, no required params, output schema present). The description covers the purpose, the use case, parameter options, and the response envelope. With an output schema available, not detailing every return field is acceptable. The description is complete for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter behavior ('case-insensitive substring' and 'cap the number of results') but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. It adds no new semantic information.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'provinces (il) used by YOK ATLAS to filter university preference searches.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with universities or programs, as it focuses on provinces only.

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 clear context: the tool is for listing provinces used in YOK ATLAS university preference searches. It implies when to use it (when needing province options for filtering) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given, but the use case is evident.

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