city_located_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about data dependency on Wikidata and potential issues, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description provides some transparency but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first front-loaded with the core functionality, and the second providing important contextual caveats. There's minimal waste, though the parenthetical examples and formatting could be slightly tightened. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient but not perfectly concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple lookup tool with one parameter. It explains what data is returned and includes a caveat about data quality. However, it doesn't fully address the lack of output schema by detailing return values or structure, and the sibling tool context is underdeveloped. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'cityId' documented as requiring a string like 'Q65'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'cityId' represents or format details. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 purpose: 'Get the details for the containing populated place (e.g., its county or other administrative division), including location coordinates, population, and elevation above sea-level (if available).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('containing populated place'), and scope of data returned. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'place_located_in' or 'admin_division_details', which appear related.

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 implied usage guidance by noting data dependency on Wikidata's 'locatedIn' relation and suggesting to propose changes if issues arise. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place_located_in' or 'admin_division_details', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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